Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

CinemaCon 2012: Monty Cristo Has Seen (Some of) THE HOBBIT at 48 Frames Per Second

Monty Cristo" reporting in from filthy Las Vegas.


"Do not think I won’t kill you, dwarf”

“We eats it WHOLE!”

“One…of nine”


The instant this morning's Warner Bros presentation ended, the audience erupted in chatter. Almost everyone had just seen something that had never hit their eyes before. Forget 2D versus 3D, this is going to be a hell of a conversation come December (earlier, if they demo it).


Filmmaking at 48 frames per second, whether 3D or not, is going to be massively divisive.


For 80 years, we've been living with the 24fps standard, and people are used to the strobing and motion blur associated with it. It's that hard-to-describe look that we associate with a movie feeling like a movie. It’s a certain resolution and a certain number of still images hitting our eyes each second.


Now that "Digital Cinema" is taking over, the next step beyond resolution (1080p, 2K, 4K, or 8K, or whatever else) is the frame rate frontier. It’s being breached as we speak. With such a focus on 3D, more frames in those films will mean less headaches and blur and so on.


When I saw the HOBBIT trailer at 24fps in December at BNAT, there was something somewhat off. I felt it most directly in the bits that involved fast cutting and motion. My eyes had to do a lot of work to soak in everything they were seeing. Even after seeing it three times, I felt I’d missed things.


48fps makes those moments more fluid and clear, but there's something that people will absolutely hate about this upfront.


It's different, first of all, but the big issue people walked out of the room this morning feeling is that the look of THE HOBBIT is not what they associate with filmic, or movie-like, or at all traditionally cinematic. The effect of watching 1970’s BBC television dramas as compared to US TV from the same era was mentioned by various people around me.


In the opening minutes, I thought to myself "this looks like the TV department when they turn on 120Hz or TruMotion or whatever they call it". At once, it really doesn’t look like that. The smooth motion clarity is similar, but the 120Hz TV setting is the TV inventing visual information to fill in loads of completely nonexistent frames, creating the bullshit garbage you see walking through most TV departments in stores. Again, there is an element that 48fps and TruMotion share (which is where the comparison comes from), but 48 fps does not simply “look like Korean soap operas” or TruMotion-enhanced TV images. That’s a reductive, sensationalist, utterly bullshit equivocation.


Despite that, loads of exhibitors and attendees echoed that exact thought all around me. The cinematic filter between the action and the audience is dissolved in favor of a more immediate lens on the world of the movie. 


The High Frame Rate Effect is something that will take getting used to, and some will absolutely reject it outright. Many will do so pre-emptively. It’s already happening all over Twitter.


To be honest, it kind of terrified me at first. In his pre-recorded intro, Peter Jackson said that the reason we were seeing 10 minutes of content was that "it takes your eyes a little bit to adjust", and that is absolutely the case. The immersive experience was not immediate, but gradual. I felt much more comfortable toward the end of the presentation, but still disconcerted and outside a comfort zone.


The most upfront benefit I felt was in landscape and action sequences, where surprisingly intricate detail was easily absorbed, even in a very, very wide shot. I was drawing in more visual information than my brain was used to processing.


Motion blur was gone completely in fast-moving action scenes and dark environment. In general, 48fps has the ability to be at once crisp and smooth, subtle and bold. It is a maelstrom of contradictions when compared to the loads of filmed content I’ve seen in my life. Others started pronouncing it over immediately upon exiting, but I am not passing that judgment (or any for that matter) yet. I saw ten minutes of unfinished, un-graded, incomplete footage as a cross-section, not a full feature film.


I have major reservations, but at the same time am beyond awed at many elements of what hit my visual cortex. Recalling the sweeping landscape shots they opened with now, I almost feel tears welling, and I can’t explain why. It was overwhelming in the most literal sense. It directly assaults your synapses with twice as much information through your retinas as you have become conditioned to expect from traditional cinema. I did not see the digital seams around creatures like Gollum and the trolls, a major benefit over 24fps. The creatures had a sense of mass in the environment, which was disconcerting in a good way.


I started getting acclimated, and then it cut away again, and again, and again. The scene that really allowed me to relax and get used to it was the scene with Bilbo and Gollum in the cave, the longest segment they showed us. If there had been more contiguous sequences like that, cut together like a full scene (albeit with unfinished color grading and effects), I think the response might have been very different in that room today. The enemy of a radically new presentation like 48fps is the sizzle reel format of cutting. People needed to be given the benefit of their patience not being tried by rapid cutting back and forth from non-contiguous scenes.


My call is that it was a less than ideal way to introduce something that, despite it all, managed to actually show promise in places.


I just had three people in the press suite agree that they did in fact think the Bilbo/Gollum scene worked, no reservations. Those same people said that all the brief clips “felt” like the 1970 I, CLAUDIUS in HD. They agreed that if they’d seen two or three sequences of that length, they may have been less reflexively averse to it. The most bizarre thing is that I found Jeffrey Wells singing 48fps’ praises and guys like Alex Billington slamming it and setting it on fire.


I think anyone making a definitive pronouncement (positive or negative) based on that presentation does not have enough proper representative data. I’m a presentation obsessive when it comes to aspect ratio, resolution, contrast, color grading, and all the nitty gritty. For my part, I’m still holding out. I don’t think I (or anyone) got the right representative look at it. Keep that in mind as you read what I’m sure will be loads of articles calling for 48fps’ pre-emptive death.


At once, I am beset with wonder at what the Battle of Five Armies will look like in motion. I wonder at what Smaug will look like in motion. There is so much more to see before all of that, which I assume is going to be in the second movie anyway.


Jackson mentioned something in his intro that I don’t think he was hedging with, about the frame rate of silent pictures being 16-18fps, and how going to 24fps was a big leap in the day. Think of the relative jump: from silent to sound, a few decades pass and they increase the number of frames by 50%…in this case, 80 years pass and they increase the frame rate to 150% more. This is a massive shift in visual clarity, composition, and perception. Like I said, if you thought 2D versus 3D has been fun, this is a quantum jump into another realm of perception, and I expect the debate to be exponentially more heated.


There's so much more that's gone on too, but this is the biggest industry-wide thing that's gone down since I've been here.


<FONT COLOR=RED>UPDATE:</FONT> Because Talkbackers and Twitterers have asked, WB acknowledged that a 24fps version of HOBBIT will be in cinemas this December.



For reference, here are some things I saw in the footage itself that weren’t in the existing trailer:


Dwarves crossing mountains, bobbing down a river in barrels, and fighting trolls.

Gandalf in a dungeon, searching for…something. Some other thing is in there with him.

Gandalf showing Elrond and Galadriel a sword that troubles them deeply.

Legolas drawing his bow, and threatening to use it.

Bilbo and Gollum in a cave.

If just for a moment…Saruman.


Bring your best, Talkbackers. What say you?


Moisés Chiullan
"Monty Cristo"
Follow Me on Twitter

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • April 24, 2012, 4:02 p.m. CST

    has Jackson fucked it?

    by teddy_duchamp

  • April 24, 2012, 4:05 p.m. CST

    This is what i was afraid of it will look like TruMotion

    by eric haislar

    I hate that shit. everything looks wrong and not film like.

  • April 24, 2012, 4:05 p.m. CST


    by D.Vader

  • April 24, 2012, 4:05 p.m. CST

    Can convert it be converted back to 24 frames?

    by eric haislar

    anyone know?

  • April 24, 2012, 4:07 p.m. CST

    lawyer guy

    by nathan ash

    Oooh I dont like that at all.....

  • April 24, 2012, 4:08 p.m. CST

    HOBBIT will be presented at 24fps as well

    by Monty Cristo

    Since not all theaters will be able to convert in time.

  • April 24, 2012, 4:08 p.m. CST

    My biggest concern...

    by chuckmoose

    is what it will look like in my little backwoods theatre that has no newer technology at all. This will certainly be worth a trip to the big city to see it in a real theatre I guess.

  • April 24, 2012, 4:09 p.m. CST

    I am reminded of the 3D preview presentations for AVATAR

    by D.Vader

    Those seemed to have middle of the road reactions too.

  • April 24, 2012, 4:10 p.m. CST

    Uh, what about reality?

    by photosurrealism

    Twice as much as my retinas are used to? Not nearly. I walk around all day looking at a world that's much more detailed than 48fps. Luddite "purists" notwithstanding, higher frame rate can only be a good thing. 24ps was picked because it was about as low as they could go- not because it was good by any other metric.

  • April 24, 2012, 4:10 p.m. CST


    by eric haislar

    You mean 24?

  • April 24, 2012, 4:10 p.m. CST

    RedWhiteNegro is right

    by D.Vader

    To Hell with innovation!

  • April 24, 2012, 4:11 p.m. CST

    Is it better than IMAX?

    by Sean1701

    IMAX still seem like the gold standard to me.

  • April 24, 2012, 4:11 p.m. CST


    by Monty Cristo

    Twice as much as compared to 24fps movies. Have edited to clarify. Thanks for catching that.

  • April 24, 2012, 4:11 p.m. CST

    A Question For Monty From -- DOOM!

    by V. von Doom

    Do you think this selection will be shown at ComicCon this summer, or is it a special compilation for the CinemaCon crowd only? (DOOM assumes all of you were strip-searched to ensure no recording devices got near the screening room. Hopefully not too roughly.)

  • April 24, 2012, 4:12 p.m. CST

    It's definately a mistake

    by brobdingnag

    in both the case of shooting in 3D and 48fps. This will cause the Hobbit films to not feel at all like part of the same world as LOTR. Not to mention both are gimmicks that add nothing to the experience.

  • April 24, 2012, 4:13 p.m. CST

    Which will we see first?

    by Benjamin Allen

    Harry or Stan Lee at 48fps and which would be more terrifying?

  • April 24, 2012, 4:13 p.m. CST

    This seems like such a risky, bold move.

    by frank

    I find it hard to wrap my brain around why the higher frame rate looks so strange. Is it just because we are used to seeing the slower frame rate? It just seems so counterintuitive that fewer frames per second looks better than more frames per second. It seems strange that the studio has allowed Jackson to take such a potentially alienating risk with this kind of major tentpole release.

  • April 24, 2012, 4:13 p.m. CST

    I was at my in laws house watching a movie with them and the Mrs.

    by eric haislar

    and i literally had to pause the movie and figure out how to turn of the tru motion bullshit. It makes everything looks unnatural and like it was shot on video. They looked at me like i was crazy. But it really does take you out of the film.

  • April 24, 2012, 4:14 p.m. CST


    by where_are_quints_hobbit_set_reports

    post 'em you lubber!!!

  • Where everything has that live video effect to it. Similar to a Soap Opera or an 80's Sitcom. Some people don't like it. I love it. I watched my Star Wars blurays on my sisters TV and was blown away. I never saw Star Wars look like that. It felt like I could walk on to the set with all the actors. Star Wars 1977 looked like live video. It's weird because it seems to effect older movies better than say an episode of Dancing with the Stars.

  • April 24, 2012, 4:14 p.m. CST

    It's unfortunate that this will have that "BBC" television look.

    by CodeName

    Nothing against BBC, or my English brothers, but when I go see a movie in a movie theater, I want to see the 24fps film look. Time is slower in the 24fps realm making its films look like a dream, which is the whole point of watching a movie -- to escape the real world.

  • Can you comment on the other aspects of the scenes that you saw Monty Cristo? Like the dialogue, acting, cinematography etc?

  • April 24, 2012, 4:15 p.m. CST


    by justmyluck

    *In the opening minutes, I thought to myself "this looks like the TV department when they turn on 120Hz or TruMotion or whatever they call it".* Very yes!!!

  • April 24, 2012, 4:17 p.m. CST

    Its not at all like hot pepper, redwhitenegro

    by D.Vader

    Hey, whaddya have against hot pepper anyway?

  • This is *exactly* what I predicted A YEAR AGO :

  • April 24, 2012, 4:18 p.m. CST

    I hear the CGI creations look fantastic

    by D.Vader

    Integrated into the environment in a much more believable way.

  • I'm sure this isn't what you meant, but the 24fps frame rate was not chose because it would make films look like a dream; that was not the whole point.

  • April 24, 2012, 4:24 p.m. CST

    I have a stupid question.

    by DonaldKaufman

    Does the movie's run time change depending on which FPS is used?

  • April 24, 2012, 4:24 p.m. CST

    Get ready for the inevitable 48 fps upcharge

    by petek66

  • And if you want some "first hand", just read some other people's reactions. Hell even Monty addresses this, did you see it? "I did not see the digital seams around creatures like Gollum and the trolls, a major benefit over 24fps. The creatures had a sense of mass in the environment, which was disconcerting in a good way."

  • April 24, 2012, 4:25 p.m. CST

    I did mean "hearsay", though

    by D.Vader

    D'oh! =P

  • April 24, 2012, 4:25 p.m. CST

    I can't wait for The Hobbit!!

    by Tally

    Thank you for this detail.... and rationality regarding what you saw. So many out there right now just whining, "I HATE CHANGE WAAAAAAH!" It sounds amazing, and a real gift to special effects. I think it will make the detailed craft designers happy that their creations will be better seen. Woe to the lazy ones though. However, I do agree with redwhitenegro on the sound thing. I shouldn't have to watch a DVD at home with the remote never leaving my hand having to adjust the sound constantly to avoid going deaf.

  • April 24, 2012, 4:26 p.m. CST


    by eric haislar

    That is a good question. I don't know. But it would have to right? I mean even if it is like 3 mins.

  • April 24, 2012, 4:27 p.m. CST


    by rev_skarekroe

    My retinas!!

  • April 24, 2012, 4:28 p.m. CST


    by CodeName

    I'm sure it wasn't the point to make it look dream-like in early film, but you can't deny that there's a certain magic to a slower frame count. I'm not the only one who thinks this: "much like a painting carries a different visual quality than a still photograph, the blurring effect of 24 frames-per-second is what gives movies their otherworldly, dream-like quality." - Inside Movies

  • April 24, 2012, 4:29 p.m. CST

    franks_television, justmyluck

    by Monty Cristo

    I mention the CG stuff. Looks great, can't see the digital seams as much as 24fps. The Bilbo/Gollum scene is the most complete in terms of being able to get a feel for performance, and it's really good. Consistent with the trilogy's feel when it comes to performance and atmosphere, really. The dimensionality from 3D lends it a slightly different feel to the trilogy, but in a way, I think it's good that there's a slight difference in aesthetic to the time before Sauron rises again.

  • April 24, 2012, 4:29 p.m. CST


    by eric haislar

    Wait not a second is still a second. your just seeing more of that second. so run times should be the same. in theory.

  • April 24, 2012, 4:29 p.m. CST

    If human persistence of vision is 1/25 sec,

    by frank

    meaning that we only process 25 images per second, then how could we even tell the difference between anything higher than 25 fps? donaldkaufman: Surely not. They would just cut out some frames and have the remaining ones last longer, or something like that. So the pacing of the action would remain the same. Otherwise it would be like watching the film in slow motion.

  • April 24, 2012, 4:29 p.m. CST

    It works in Stereo

    by Ian Hylands

    For mono ("2D") presentation, 24FPS is the standard and it works beautifully. I will defend 24FPS mono to my death. In stereo ("3D"), with two images jockeying for attention, 48FPS works beautifully also. The stereo projection benefits from a brighter image and a faster frame-rate. That said, story trumps all and it's The Hobbit. It's going to be an incredible experience :)

  • April 24, 2012, 4:30 p.m. CST

    Thanks, montycristo

    by frank

    I still feel confident that this will be awesome.

  • April 24, 2012, 4:30 p.m. CST

    Sure, Codename

    by D.Vader

    But just because its been the standard for all these years, a standard that for the most part was dictated as well by the available technology, it doesn't mean it can't be experimented with and hopefully improved upon. I do agree that film has a certain dreamlike quality, but I'm willing to give 48fps a chance to wow me.

  • April 24, 2012, 4:31 p.m. CST

    No need for the lesson, JustMyLuck

    by D.Vader

    I've already moved past that, if you noticed.

  • April 24, 2012, 4:32 p.m. CST


    by eric haislar

    not saying we won't see it. but if it is anything like that true motion stuff. i probably will not like it.

  • April 24, 2012, 4:33 p.m. CST


    by D.Vader

    So Monty and every other blogger who comments on the scene with the Trolls and with Gollum and the Fx being even more seamless than in the trilogy was just imagining the CGI characters? "Incomplete FX" doesn't mean "Zero FX".

  • April 24, 2012, 4:33 p.m. CST

    So it's gone from 1930s hand held filmstock to blu ray

    by KiwiMetal

    in one fell swoop. Everyone is after a change, something to get people back in the cinema. Problem is they may not have expected something so sudden. Sounds like 3D may be an ideal 48fps format, especially if the 'mass' issue mentioned works. PJ said it was going to be a radical step up. People probably didn't realise how big the step was going to be.

  • April 24, 2012, 4:35 p.m. CST

    redwhitenegro - hey, retarded boy. this is a geek movie website.

    by antonphd

    go back to your kiddie porn.

  • April 24, 2012, 4:35 p.m. CST


    by Monty Cristo

    It may not be final VFX, but Gollum looked pretty damn done, and I was mostly referring to the sense of mass of the few near-finished characters on screen.

  • April 24, 2012, 4:36 p.m. CST


    by eric haislar

    will we need new tv for this? or blu ray players?

  • April 24, 2012, 4:38 p.m. CST


    by Tally

    - no. It's the same second (amount of time) just with fewer frames in it. the key is: (Frames) PER SECOND. It's like walking a mile in 15 min. You can either take fewer long strides, or more short ones. It's still a mile (the same dialog in the same scene), and the same 15 minutes.

  • April 24, 2012, 4:39 p.m. CST

    i make video games for a living

    by antonphd

    there are some things that come and go that are nothing more than cash grabs, but higher fps are not one of those things. it may take people a bit of time to get used to higher fps, but going back to lower fps is like going back to lower resolution. you feel like you are looking through a dirty windshield. the bitches with bitch. that's what they do. the rest of the world will adopt higher fps just like they adopted hd. no doubts about that. and it's not like 3d. which requires glasses to watch.

  • It's got a far more romantic and yes, undescribable, slightly dream like quality. I am definitely not a fan of motionplus shit, but that is artificially added and also looks bad everytime the camera moves because the filter can't adjust properly to the motion blur I am VERY curious to see how the Hobbit looks, but I agree that is going to alienate a lot of people. I just wish this had been pioneered on some standalone epic film, like what cameron did with Avatar. Simply because the Hobbit is also supposed to sit next to the LotR trilogy so should be as close to those as possible. I'm reserving final judgement until I see this in the theatre.

  • April 24, 2012, 4:40 p.m. CST

    Don't care what Cameron or Jackson say.

    by MrFloppy

    Video-texture is crap. I want my 24fps.

  • April 24, 2012, 4:40 p.m. CST

    by soulless_swede

    My big question is, what the hell is going to happen when this is released on bluray. Will it be 48p or 24p? Will it be compatible with my bd player, tv and avr? Will we have a new generation of 3:2 pulldown?

  • April 24, 2012, 4:40 p.m. CST

    Really interesting stuff...and a question for the techies...

    by Michael Morning

    Totally off topic of the 48fps issue...does anyone know what it is about television settings that adjust some movies to look like you're watching a play and others to look more like the quality of film you're used to seeing in a movie?</p> <p> I ask because the TV (an LCD) in our bedroom shows movies as if you're watching a play (that's the only way I can describe the look of the film). I hate that look, but can't figure out how to get rid of it. The plasma in the living room looks normal when playing movies (both are connected to the same model of Blu Ray player).</p> <p> Anyone know what the heck I'm talking about?

  • April 24, 2012, 4:44 p.m. CST

    I can't wait to see this!

    by Winston Smith

    And I think if 3D is to stay, then 48fps or 60fps is here to stay, since 3D gets more stroby than 2D because the light is being diverted to both eyes. One thing is, everyone keeps trying to predict the future. Honestly, nobody knows. I'm excited that the medium is being shook up, but personally I like the look of 24 fps, and the best stuff I've seen is 65mm or IMAX stock (so Nolan is doing it right in that regard for me). Resolution makes the most difference for me, even more than 3D or increased framerate. But I'm glad people are playing around with stuff. If this does hit on, I bet occasionally we'll still see 24 fps movies that are "classical" in the way we see black & white nowadays. But the more tools filmmakers have to play around with the better, I still wish there was more of a IMAX growing trend. Dark Knight and MI4 looked amazing when they blew up, and I think there's no reason we couldn't get that resolution but still filmic with cameras that are smaller and quieter so an entire film can be shot with that stock.

  • April 24, 2012, 4:45 p.m. CST

    One things clear were all gonna have to buy new shit and soon. DEAL WITH IT

    by Emerald Snoggingbottom

    If you cant afford it, oh well.

  • April 24, 2012, 4:45 p.m. CST

    Also, I do agree...

    by Winston Smith

    ...that The Hobbit will look different than LOTR and that this may be a bad thing. As cool as it is, it seems this tech would have been best suited for an original film, or at least something futuristic where that kinda "feel" fits the world. Avatar 2 + 3 at 48 fps seems ideal, but The Hobbit, I mean in my ideal world Jackson would have shot some stuff on IMAX and 65mm but would have kept it to all film so it'd match with the original trilogy.

  • April 24, 2012, 4:46 p.m. CST


    by Tally

    I would think playback wouldn't be affected since it's FRAMES PS, as opposed to dots on the screen.

  • April 24, 2012, 4:46 p.m. CST


    by justmyluck

  • That's what will probably happen. But that won't stop all the internet babble...I hope at least a third of those fuckers get an aneurism by December.

  • April 24, 2012, 4:48 p.m. CST


    by eric haislar

    I don't think you can compare this and HD. HD is giving you a closer to the cinema feel. This is taking you away from that.

  • April 24, 2012, 4:49 p.m. CST

    I'm curious about what this will look like...

    by bubcus

    aside from video games running at 60 fps, I don't know what to expect from a movie at 48 fps.

  • April 24, 2012, 4:50 p.m. CST

    This is new and different and I hate it!

    by locater16

    Just like every new website design ever.

  • April 24, 2012, 4:52 p.m. CST


    by eric haislar

    there is a setting somewhere they all have them. Look up the issue and your model number online. someone will have your answer. And just so you know. This will look just like that. I hate it as well.

  • Thank you Peter Jackson.

  • April 24, 2012, 4:55 p.m. CST


    by eric haislar

    it's going to look like that only more clear.

  • April 24, 2012, 4:58 p.m. CST

    The next revolution in filmmaking: LIVE THEATRE..Its like youre really there!

    by Emerald Snoggingbottom

  • April 24, 2012, 4:58 p.m. CST

    24 to 48 is 100% more, not 150%.

    by paketep

  • April 24, 2012, 5 p.m. CST


    by Monty Cristo

    like I say in the piece, the only thing 48fps and TruMotion have in common is reduction of motion blur. TruMotion on your TV looks like shit because your TV is artificially creating new frames and it looks like garbage. 48fps actually captures double the frames. This is a difficult thing to put into words, but it is very easy to conflate the two (TruMotion and 48fps), but they are very different in image quality. TruMotion shows you every frame twice kinda-sorta. 48fps captures twice as many.

  • April 24, 2012, 5:02 p.m. CST

    Holy Crap!

    by Tim

    I seriously hope you are joking or trolling. That is far worse than a stupid question. Registered just to respond to this stupidity.

  • April 24, 2012, 5:05 p.m. CST

    thanks for the report

    by Anthony Torchia

    You're right the jury is out and that people will declare a verdict anyway Waiting to see it myself, assuming the world doesn't go POP on the winter solstice

  • April 24, 2012, 5:06 p.m. CST

    48 fps

    by magela

    I don't think people should be doing all these supositions in something that's still unfinished. We cannot know how it will look in the end

  • April 24, 2012, 5:08 p.m. CST

    Does It Change The Runtime?

    by Tim

    I can not even believe there are multiple people asking this question & even responding to each other. "It has to change the runtime right, even if it is 3 minutes." Wow! I can't believe I am still amazed by the level of stupidity on the internet, but it still gets me every time. donaldkaufman & erichaislar congratulations you get the dumbest thing I have seen on the internet today award. This is really saying a lot to because the net is filled with stupidity. Maybe google FPS or watch this video you probably have the same problem with MPH in the care. Holy Crap.

  • April 24, 2012, 5:10 p.m. CST

    On a similar note but not the same - Star Wars on Blu-Ray

    by D o o d

    the recent release of the original trilogy of Star Wars on Blu-Ray looks to have that effect for me. I really don't like them. Everything is Too Sharp, Too Smooth, Too Clean. There's a grittiness that gave those films that other worldy look and feel that's completely lost. I excited to see advancements in new technology and I'll be there day one to see the Hobbit, however, I already now know what's in store with this increased frame rate!

  • April 24, 2012, 5:11 p.m. CST

    3D needs a higher framerate

    by judge dredds fresh undies

    I find 3d horrible to watch at present, I'm constantly aware of the strobing. That said, I couldn't give a shit about 3d anyway, I am quite happy with 24 fps 2d film, the increased resolution of imax is more spectacular to me.

  • April 24, 2012, 5:11 p.m. CST


    by Tim

    It is filmed & projected at 48 FPS.

  • April 24, 2012, 5:13 p.m. CST

    So BluRay is dead then

    by joey72

    With 48fps and resolutions higher than 1080p, I don't think the public are ready for another format war. My money is on Ultraviolet and the cloud.

  • Whether a through-a-window-like clarity is good for *cinema* seems to be widely divisive, even with just the 10 minute demo.

  • April 24, 2012, 5:15 p.m. CST

    48fps and trumotion

    by tempurasan

    I like it. I feel that it gives a new perspective to cinema, and definitely add a level of realism to the story being presented. But then again, I love the new Digital films that Michael Mann have been making. It takes in light differently and definitely has a raw immersion aspect to it. I feel that the moment Hollywood stop innovating, that is when cinema dies. The same stories have been told and retold many many times throughout Hollywood. The only thing that make them fresh are the new ways and innovations that directors try to incorporate into those stories. Whenever new innovations are introduced, especially when it's heading in the right direction, you always get traditionalists bucking against it. It has all happened before, and it will happen again. Anything from introduction of sound to color, from film to digital, people have been crying foul. So why don't you give it a chance before you decry it. It's one fucking film for pete's sake. Relax.

  • April 24, 2012, 5:20 p.m. CST

    So when they cut half the frames for 24fps...

    by Shabado

    won't it look jumpy since it doesn't contain the native 24fps motion blur? So glad Nolan doesn't subscribe to this shit, IMAX resolution is far more immersive.

  • April 24, 2012, 5:20 p.m. CST


    by Monty Cristo

    I feel that Ultravioet is DOA. Ridiculously complex for no damn good reason.

  • April 24, 2012, 5:21 p.m. CST

    I agree with Lordcranium

    by Citizen Sane

    Particularly about "...story trumps all..." so, chances are, MiB III is going to suck.

  • April 24, 2012, 5:22 p.m. CST

    We are all so glad you registered, tdurbin.

    by frank

    Thanks for taking the time out of your busy schedule to be a prick.

  • Looks indistinguishable from any other film.

  • April 24, 2012, 5:26 p.m. CST


    by Monty Cristo

    That's one of the big open questions I have on my list.

  • April 24, 2012, 5:27 p.m. CST

    I'm willing to give it a shot.

    by Zod_

    I agree that watching movies on a 120hz tv looks way to smooth and looks like it was filmed on a retail video camera (even my 2 years old HD cam can do 60fps). It looks so smooth. I guess its because it hasn't changed in decades. We're used to movies looking like film. Can we get used to 48fps? I've been fairly content keep my 60hz tv because things look to smooth on my friend 120hz tv. I'll give this a shot... I'm not sure it'll stick or how easy it would be to get used to it.

  • April 24, 2012, 5:28 p.m. CST

    3D and 48fps = Money Gimmick

    by Max

    This will not make a better movie, it's only trying to change the system so we and the movie cinemas have to re-invest in our projectors to view these films. It all boils down to money! A majority of movie theaters across the nation can not afford the thousands of dollars to switch projectors with every new "gimmick" to come out. Just look at 3D, there are multiple "flavors" of 3D projectors and the theater can only afford to invest in one type. Directors that cannot create their vision through 24fps need to go back to preproduction and rethink things. There are different ways to deal with motion blur if captured correctly.

  • April 24, 2012, 5:29 p.m. CST

    To paraphrase Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park...

    by unparanoid_android

    just because you can do it doesn't mean you SHOULD do it. The world is perfectly happy with 24fps, no need to shove something down our throats in the name of "progress". FWIW I The Hobbit is probably going to blow.

  • April 24, 2012, 5:29 p.m. CST

    this tb will divide people

    by yourSTEPDADDY

    from those who watch movies to those who who are actual film nerds wirh that said, no idea what tthe fuck is goin on and I think I don't like it ps: also not a fan of lotr

  • hence why the nightly news, sporting events, 80s sitcoms, 70s british shows, and soap operas all have that look, as they are all shot on, or around 30fps as Monte cristo said, this will have a distinct look even from those, but if anything they should look like that only more so.

  • April 24, 2012, 5:35 p.m. CST

    All this new tech is kinda funny

    by lv_426

    I remember about 10 years ago, a camera called the DVX100 came out, with the magical ability to record in 24fps (24p), as well as the standard 30fps (60i). This camera started a revolution, and now just about every video camera, pro or consumer, has 24p as a frame rate option. Then HD DSLRs came along, with their larger 35mm size image sensors (although, before that were those wonky 35mm adapters... yikes). People went through all kinds of hell trying to get the coveted *film look* with cameras like the DVX100 all the way up to DSLRs, plus effects plug-ins that soften the footage or add a cinema-like gamma curve to it. Then they add grain filters or composite real film grain on top of their footage, but now... The big budget part of the industry is moving in the opposite direction with higher frame rates, abolishing the standard 24p look, moving to sharp 4K & 5K cameras, creating grain-less images, and up-selling people those silly 120hz smooth motion whatever the fuck they call 'em HD televisions, etc.

  • April 24, 2012, 5:35 p.m. CST


    by Industrious Angel

    I've been waiting for years and I think 48fps or maybe more is the future. 3D in its current form is just a gimmick, but HFR really makes it easier for the eyes and more immersive. It was not feasible earlier (with 35mm film, you would have had double the material), but going digital opens up this opportunity and I say take it. There will be problems at first - the clearer pic will make it more difficult for make-up and wardrobe to hold up the illusion, and everything CG (3D or not) takes double the rendering time, but in the long run, HFR will be the way to go for certain kind of films.

  • Here's Douglas Trumbull and a Showscan demo. He shoots in 128 but cuts it down to 24fps and 6fps, and if you're curious *how* they do it, this will explain it as well. Learn and extrapolate how they'll do it for 24fps playback for The Hobbit's 48.

  • April 24, 2012, 5:37 p.m. CST

    I should amend that last post...

    by D.Vader

    I'm guessing that will only apply to theaters that can't project in 48 fps. I assume that's how they'll bring it down to 24fps, in which case, I don't think we'll see much noticeable difference.

  • April 24, 2012, 5:37 p.m. CST

    Hm. So what about the Lord of the Rings trilogy?

    by elsewhere

    Can they go back and adjust it to 48fps for continuity? Sorry I know nothing about this sort of shit.

  • April 24, 2012, 5:40 p.m. CST


    by Rebel Scumb

    You're part right part wrong Normal film is shot 24 fps, and projected 24 fps traditionally if you were going to shoot something to be a slow motion sequence in a movie, you might shoot at 48 fps (or other frame rates), but still project at 24 fps, hence it being slowed down motion but no loss of image quality or movement flow, because no visual information is lost, as opposed to if you shot something at 24 fps, then added it to slow motion during editing, which is just playing those 24 fps slower, which always looks awful In this case they SHOT the movie at 48 fps, and will project it at 48 fps, so there will now be twice as many images seen by the eye per second, which means increased detail, smoother movements etc. The best analogy is a flip book cartoon. If you show a man walking, and use 10 seperate drawings to illustrate the different positions of his legs and flip through it will give the illusion he is walking. If you were draw more inbetween steps, more subtle changes from one frame to the next, say 20 drawings but flip through the pages twice as fast to show the exact same action, he would still appear to walk in the same way, but there would be more detail as more steps of the overall movement are visible. Any time we watch a movie, our brain is subconsciously filling in the blanks between each frame, especiall in instances of fast motions or movements. If a person slams a door onscreen, every instance of that door going from the persons hand to the doorframe is not captured on film, it may only take up 3-4 frames in which case there are several steps of the doors journey that do not exist on the film frames, but our minds generate to create the illusion of movement which is called persistence of vision. On the actual film reel there might just be a frame of the door fully open, a 2nd frame of a blurry door half closed, and a 3rd frame of it completely shut. Everything else our mind generates but with this it might be 6 seperate images of the door getting from point A to point B

  • Real slow-motion is achieved by shooting many, many, many frames of the action and playing them back at real time. Hence, 48 fps played back at 24 fps will be slow. Fake slow-motion is when Final Cut Pro makes something appear slow by duplicating frames. You don't get smooth slow motion, you get jittery slow motion instead. Monty Cristo has said the same thing with 48 fps and TruMotion. 48 fps captures more frames. TruMotion just duplicates.

  • April 24, 2012, 5:42 p.m. CST

    @joey72 -- Blu-ray is not dead

    by lv_426

    All this 3D, IMAX, 48fps business is Hollywood trying to make the theater going experience grander and so they can charge more for certain showings (IMAX/3D for example). If the theater experience gives audiences something better and different than what they can get at home with their Blu-ray and HDTV, then the theory is that more people will take the time and put in the effort to see more films in theater. Of course, all this whiz-bang new tech only goes so far. If Hollywood was more worried about better stories and making a range of films for a wider demographic than the 16-25 year old audience, then I bet they'd have better luck with theatrically released films. Personally, my opinion is that 3D and IMAX and now 48fps will just give the studio execs the crutch to think that they can keep franchising and doing the same old same old of remakes, reboots, prequels, sequels, superheros, and young adult novels adapted for the screen.

  • April 24, 2012, 5:43 p.m. CST


    by Monty Cristo

    Wouldn't use either of those adjectives. Very close to final VFX to the point I assumed it was basically done (looks as good as the original films if you ask me). Would be surprised if they altered him to not match the original films.

  • April 24, 2012, 5:44 p.m. CST

    ... And I meant 60 fps, not 6fps

    by D.Vader

  • April 24, 2012, 5:45 p.m. CST

    Pointless Debate / 28 DAYS LATER, anyone?

    by BackoffmanImaScientist

    We shouldn't be so hard on someone who's trying to swing for the fences. I'd be more worried that the film won't come through in other departments (acting, writing, etc.,) but from what I've seen so far it strikes the same tone in the trailers as the previous films, which is awesome. I really looked forward to seeing the trilogy during the Christmas season. Besides, story is what matters the most. '28 DAYS LATER'? Shot on a Canon XL1 DV camera, then transferred to film. Looks like crap, especially in the dark if you ask me. And there's weird looking stuff in the transfer. But honestly, does it matter? Because I think it's a fantastic, cracker-jack flick and the image becomes a non-issue whenever I watch it. And what did that film help do? It helped pave the way for digital filmmaking. Eventually, over the years, the tech and the images got better, and today they look downright amazing. So if the story is good THE HOBBIT could be shot with an iPhone for all I care - to me it doesn't matter. And if the 3D is better with the higher frame rate and less headache inducing - great. Personally I love 3D and the thought of it looking more like real life is intriguing. That just adds to the already built in anticipation.

  • April 24, 2012, 5:47 p.m. CST


    by Monty Cristo

    This week's episode of the YouTube show will greatly interest you. Trumbull was in the Basement last week.

  • April 24, 2012, 5:48 p.m. CST

    Ah, so that's why Harry has the BR animated GIF.

    by justmyluck

  • April 24, 2012, 5:49 p.m. CST

    It isn't just 24fps that gives things the *film/cinematic* look

    by lv_426

    When shooting for a standard film look, cinematographers use a shutter speed of 1/48th of a second (also known as a shutter angle of 180 degrees). Shoot 24p at 1/24th of a second, and it can often start to look like video. Shoot it at 1/60 or 1/75 of a second, and you can start to get that Saving Private Ryan look of slight jitteryness. This is also not accounting for lighting, blocking, framing, camera movement, etc... which also adds up to what we think of as a film or cinematic look.

  • April 24, 2012, 5:49 p.m. CST


    by eric haislar

    If you took the time to read you would see I corrected myself a few post later. So piss off.

  • April 24, 2012, 5:50 p.m. CST

    Re: Theaters needing to upgrade equipment...

    by Monty Cristo

    To planetran_fan and others, The majority of digital projectors can do it mechanically, they just need the servers that drive them upgraded. Getting more info on this from exhibitors and projector companies this week.

  • That way my eyeballs won't be molested as badly if I don't end up liking the 48fps look.

  • Is any time there is rapid camera movement I've experimented with the true-motion mode, a bit, I do find it jarring, but for example I picked up that ST:TNG blu-ray sample pack the other day, that's a show with a mostly stationary camera, or very subtle camera movements, so in effect the True-motion/cinema mode just makes it look like as some have said 'a play' or a behind the scenes video but just superbly sharp But conversely if you throw in an episode of BSG, with the camera constantly moving, it's headache inducing, and the characters all look like they are badly composited onto the background. in the case of 48fps in the Hobbit, this should not be a problem, because as many have stated, it's not a filter being added artificially to something that was never meant to look that way.

  • April 24, 2012, 5:52 p.m. CST

    Oh, Monty?

    by D.Vader

    EEEEENTERESTING! I just sincerely hope Harry doesn't inject too much of himself in the interview and allows Trumbull to really express himself. Sometimes I think Harry makes it a bit too much about him and not the subject. But I can't wait to hear what Trumbull has to say. What a coup!

  • April 24, 2012, 5:53 p.m. CST

    The weirdest is when you see animated films in True motion

    by Rebel Scumb

    It looks like a live video recording, but your mind knows it can't be because it's a cartoon. VERY VERY surreal and jarring, kind of hurts the brain

  • April 24, 2012, 5:54 p.m. CST

    LV_426, that Saving Private Ryan look

    by D.Vader

    Wasn't that achieved by opening the aperture? I thought I'd remembered that's how they got that "appears to be slow motion but isn't" look. But now that I think about it, I guess it was the shutter. Slow it down, allow a bit more light in, but keep the frame rate the same... It can make me go cross-eyed.

  • April 24, 2012, 5:57 p.m. CST

    That "look", LV_426

    by D.Vader

    I'm speaking specifically of the scenes where Capt. Ryan is in the zone, not the look of the whole film itself. Which were you speaking about?

  • April 24, 2012, 5:58 p.m. CST


    by Monty Cristo

    I was there for the recording. Harry acquits himself very well, best interview/segment yet, and am not overselling it.

  • April 24, 2012, 6:01 p.m. CST

    at montycristo

    by Max

    The upgrades still cost thousands of dollars, servers are not free. Do some research it's not cheap. So either ticket prices have to go up or the theater has to pass on a big budget movie. Most theaters have multiple projectors, thousands of dollars multiplied by 10 screen, i.e. projectors, adds up really fast use common sense. This translates to higher prices, which leads to less movie goers.

  • April 24, 2012, 6:01 p.m. CST

    Well that's good to hear, Billy

    by D.Vader

    Very good to hear, thank you.

  • I would too =).

  • April 24, 2012, 6:02 p.m. CST

    d.vader, I'm thinking of near the beginning, when for example

    by lv_426

    there is an explosion on the beach during the Normandy landing... and you see the chunks of sand and mud and everything more clearly as it is thrown up into the air. I think that is where they used the faster shutter speed/angle in Saving Private Ryan. You can also see this look in some of the battle sequences in Band of Brothers and in The Pacific.

  • April 24, 2012, 6:03 p.m. CST

    Fuck. I must be more of a cinema-tech n00b than I thought because...

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    ...I understood very little of the comparisons mentioned in that write-up. Makes me wonder if I should be concerned about the frame rate becoming a distracti my initial viewing of the film

  • April 24, 2012, 6:05 p.m. CST

    • That's a "distraction during my initial viewing of the film."

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    Bloody typos.

  • April 24, 2012, 6:07 p.m. CST

    Appreciate the level-headed assessment, Monty.

    by Anti-fanboy

  • The narrow shutter *slice* wipes the frame instead of fully exposing the frame all at once, which decreases blur. There were also shutter *phase* adjustments in other shots to get other *combat camera* looks.

  • April 24, 2012, 6:08 p.m. CST

    Especially in contrast to Devin's douche-whining.

    by Anti-fanboy

  • April 24, 2012, 6:16 p.m. CST

    get used to it

    by krod

    this is not going away

  • April 24, 2012, 6:18 p.m. CST

    This just goes to show...

    by The_Mad_Groper

    People are just looking for reasons to hate, as usual. Monty made a reasonable assesment and said its too early to judge and everyone just comes out with "This is gonna suck!" You guys whine WAY too much! ITs going to be something DIFFERENT. We got that. And you know what... it will be fine. Is it going to be the industry standard? Who the hell knows... and frankly who the hell cares? "It doesn't look like film"? Really? It doesn't look what you're USED to film looking like is more like it. So let me get this straight, you see Avatar, which looks like nothing you've seen before (and I'm speaking visuals not story line, we all know we saw that movie before!) and its freaking awesome! Someone else tries to bring you a visual as different and everybody's crapping on it before anyone's really SEEN it? This just goes to prove that most of the people on this site are just plain wacked the hell out. If you call yourself a "flim nerd" or "film geek" then take this in stride. For whatever comes, I believe we are in for one helluva ride!

  • April 24, 2012, 6:22 p.m. CST

    *pice = pie

    by justmyluck

  • April 24, 2012, 6:23 p.m. CST

    Look at the the three guys who are advocating 48fps...

    by Logan_1973

    Jackson, Cameron, and fucking Trumball. Not exactly kids just out of college. I have faith in my elders.

  • April 24, 2012, 6:24 p.m. CST

    Hope they release a mono version. Surround sound is just a gimmick!!!

    by tomandshell

  • April 24, 2012, 6:26 p.m. CST

    the mad groper

    by Rebel Scumb

    While I agree with your post for the most part, and I do agree people should not leap to conclusions before seeing it for themselves I would argue that a change of frame rate is a much more fundemental change that affects the way the audiences eyes and brain actually process the visual information they are receving as opposed to something like Avatar which just had Digital FX taken to a whole new level of quality. As I've said, I'm keeping my expectations neutral until I actually see this for myself, but it will be wildly different than anything cinemagoers are use to. As noted by Monte in his original article, we've had 24 fps for 80 years, it is, for all intents purposes the one commonality of the entire cinematic language. It doesn't mean that 48 fps won't be good, or even embraced by many, but it is going to be a very very big change for most. And changes are often divisive in terms of peoples reaction

  • traffic to his site...which had crashed.

  • I was an early adopter of the DVX100 for exactly that reason, so it is very strange that Hollywood is now moving in the opposite direction.

  • It doesn't look the same, queue the butthurt.

  • April 24, 2012, 6:29 p.m. CST

    at mad groper

    by Max

    Look at Avatar in 2D, its looks horrible! I can't see 3D physically due to being blind in one eye. So when I view Avatar, it appears as smushed images pushed against the screen in the "3D" parts which translates to horrible cinematography, in my opinion. The idea behind motion pictures, movies, is to simulate a 3D world on a 2D screen. Using film techniques you can get an amazing "3D" look from a 2D picture. Filmmakers learn these tricks as they become better at their craft.

  • every time the Pythons, or Dr. Who walk through a door from inside to outside, the entire picture quality and frame rate change.

  • I asked everyone around me who watched the clips. At 30fps, the image appeared more crisp, but it felt like video. Or a soap opera. At 24fps, the image lost a little of its crispness, but EVERYONE agreed "Now THAT's a movie!". There's something that happens when you pass that threshold of 24-25fps that the indescribable and elusive dream-like quality of the movie (created by that strobe effect, the motion blurs and frame rate) disappears. Because movie are not supposed to look real. 3D never looks real when you see "Avatar" or "Titanic 3D" (James Cameron even says he changes the depth settings for each shot, which our eyes never do). It enhances the dream-like quality of the movie. That's what I love about it. That's also why the settings of 16-18 fps worked in silent films. It's still under 30 fps, so the dream like quality is still there. I love Peter Jackson. But I don't think people are gonna like 48fps (and I'm sure theaters are gonna make matters worse by charging extra for it). Although as a bonus, Roger Ebert (a critic I have immense respect for) will finally shut it about 48 fps format.

  • April 24, 2012, 6:39 p.m. CST


    by The_Mad_Groper

    Unfortunately, I have never gone back to watch Avatar since my initial movie going experience. While I enjoyed the stunning visuals, the story left me "vacant". Never felt the urge to revisit it again and now that you tell me that the visuals are just ruined in 2D I probably will never go back. Don't think this is a jab at those people who love Avatar, it isn't! It just wasn't my cup of tea! When I think of it, I think of it in terms of women. Some are REALLY nice to look at, but you can't spend another 2 minutes in the room with them. And some might not look AS good, you can't imagaine your life without them! Right now, I giving benefit of the doubt to Sir Peter and just hoping he delivers a film that truely looks as good as it makes me feel!

  • April 24, 2012, 6:42 p.m. CST

    I assume THE HOBBIT can be converted to look like film?

    by Orionsangels

    If PJ wishes to do so.

  • April 24, 2012, 6:43 p.m. CST


    by BackoffmanImaScientist


  • April 24, 2012, 6:44 p.m. CST

    Mad Groper

    by Max

    HAHAHA, I like the way you think. "I think of it in terms of women. Some are REALLY nice to look at, but you can't spend another 2 minutes in the room with them. And some might not look AS good, you can't imagaine your life without them!"

  • April 24, 2012, 6:45 p.m. CST

    Well story aside, Avatar looks great on blu-ray

    by Rebel Scumb

    not sure at all what MadMC is refering to, it's a really great looking disc there also weren't '3D parts' to Avatar, the whole movie was in 3D in theatres, and I've only ever watched it on 2D on blu-ray because I prefer it. Anyways, I don't want to stir an argument, but that's my take on it.

  • April 24, 2012, 6:45 p.m. CST

    Every form of entertainment these days needs to have a gimmick.

    by Orionsangels

    Whether it's 3D or now this 48fps. Motion controls for Video Games. When in reality people just wanna see good movies and play good games.

  • April 24, 2012, 6:46 p.m. CST


    by The_Mad_Groper

    Right! That's what I was saying! That's what Montey was saying! It is a fundamental change! As fundamental as going from 18-19 fps to 24, or Silent to sound, or Black and White to Color! And while its a "commonality" to the cinema language, a language tends to become static after a time and it dies if it doesn't change every now and then. That's why I said I don't care if this becomes industry standard. I'm glad that we are still expermenting and adding new "flavors" to the pot. Some we keep, some go away, and some come back as leftovers (3D, I'm looking at you!) The main of my post was truely directed at those individuals who just crap on everything regardless. Consider it my "rant" on the stupiditiy that has become rampant on this site lately. Nothing is good enough. Nothing can be done right by them. It's just enough to drive ya nuts, you know what I mean? ;-)

  • April 24, 2012, 6:46 p.m. CST

    This is a bit weird.

    by tbrosz

    I still remember how proud the special effects people were at being able to simulate blurring, first in "go motion" with stop motion animation, and then carefully convincing CG animation to blur properly when something moves. Does this mean even live action is going to hit us like blurless stop motion used to?

  • April 24, 2012, 6:47 p.m. CST

    logan_1973 / Trumbull's Showscan

    by BackoffmanImaScientist

    I remember seeing the Showscan stuff Trumbull shot for an attraction at Luxor Las Vegas. I've never seen anything like it ever since then. It really did look like a horizontal window opened up in the theater and we were looking at a high tech city in the future. Freakin' amazing.

  • April 24, 2012, 6:49 p.m. CST

    Yeah, I am thinking I would like to see it first in 2D/24 fps

    by frank

    so I can focus on the story rather than the new film techniques. Then it might be cool to check it out in 3D/48fps for a different experience. It might well be an improvement, but I don’t want to risk having it screw up my first viewing of the film. I figure I will see it at least 5 times in the theater, so it’s not a big deal.

  • April 24, 2012, 6:54 p.m. CST

    I completely agree mad groper

    by Rebel Scumb

    no matter how good a movie is, it will always be bad

  • April 24, 2012, 6:55 p.m. CST

    at orionsangels

    by Max

    I would agree everything in entrainment these days has a gimmick but does that mean they NEED to have a gimmick? Why can't a good movie be created through a great story?

  • April 24, 2012, 6:57 p.m. CST

    So it is more true to life than the film format

    by Rupee88

    It seems only people afraid of change would be against it. You are basically saying that it communicates much more information that past film technology and better resembles "reality". That is a good thing and hopefully this format will given a chance and it will eventually take over considering it is obviously superior.

  • April 24, 2012, 6:57 p.m. CST


    by Rebel Scumb

    that's more or less the way I'm leaning as well there's basically 2 curiousities in me that want satisfying 1) the part of me that is a LOTR fan that is excited to see a new installment from the same team as the original trilogy 2) the cinema tech geek in me that is curious to see how 48 fps looks I don't see these things as mutual exclusive persay, but if I see it in 48fps first, it's going to distract me from my initial first reaction to the story and characters and overall atmosphere of the film. So I'd rather wait until the 2nd viewing just to go for the sake of checking out the 48fps presentation. If it looks great, then I've enhanced my 2nd viewing and made it worthwhile to see the movie twice in theatres. If it sucks, then I won't have done any damage to my initial reaction to the movie itself, and can just dismiss it as an experiment that didn't work (for me)

  • April 24, 2012, 7:01 p.m. CST


    by Rupee88

    yes well said. When you walk around or stand on top of a mountain or watch birds fly by, you are seeing reality in more than "48fps". People just have a sentimental attachment to the look of film and I may be no different, but closer to reality is better and will probably win in the end, even if it doesn't this time around.

  • April 24, 2012, 7:02 p.m. CST

    Hate 3D, but really looking forward to 48FPS...

    by Jay

    24FPS isn't going away. Just like shooting on Film isn't going away due to digital. Stop treating new things as a mistake. It's why there's less and less originality. You want new shit but you complain about everything new. I think it's wonderful that Jackson is doing this. I love that technology is pushing forward. But I do think a lot of "purists" will be turned off. Eyes will need time to adjust. I think viewing it in a theater for the first time will be fascinating.

  • April 24, 2012, 7:06 p.m. CST


    by Rebel Scumb

    I think what it comes down to is, that for some at least, 'more realistic' does not equate to better. Afterall, the technology to shoot movies at 30fps has existed for decades, but I don't think anyone would argue that a video shot on a cam corder looks better than a something shot on film. and has been stated above by others, Hollywood, and the cameras industry has for the past 10 years actually been working hard at adjusting pro-sumer cameras to actually be able to shoot at 24 fps instead of 30 fps because the cinematic look of 24 fps is so prefered The picture with 30 fps, or 48 fps is undoubtedly sharper, but again that doesnt in and of itself make it better. it could be argued that part of the magic of cinema is the subconscious fill in the blanks your brain is performing when watching something at 24 fps engages the mind, in the same way when reading a book we eventually start to picture the story in our head instead of just seeing the words on the page the rationale that higher frame rate automatically equals higher quality of movie going expirence, would be like saying turning up all the settings and volume on your stereo to maximum is better than a properly calibrated player with the bass, treble, volume, reverb, etc all set to their optimal conditions It could just be that 24 fps is the optimal viewing format for humans or maybe it isn't maybe it is 48 fps, or 37 fps, or 75 fps but one of the reasons 24 fps has endured is because people like the look of it, even if they can't articulate why. Otherwise no one would bother to make newer cameras with the 24 fps option, when the 'superior' 30 fps mode exists as the default. on my DVX100 camera (which predates HD going mainstream) I can toggle between 24 fps or 30 fps Everything else about the picture quality/look remains the same except the frame rate but despite the fact that the 30 fps should be considered 'better' I think if you were to gather a group of people and ask which they prefered, most would choose the 24 fps.

  • April 24, 2012, 7:09 p.m. CST

    rupee88 cont'd

    by Rebel Scumb

    Sorry just saw your other comment. I understand what you're getting at (the mountain example), and I neither agree nor disagree But something to consider is that people aren't nessesarily looking for realism when they watch a movie. Otherwise Hollywood would have switched to 30 fps in the 1980s when video started to take over.

  • April 24, 2012, 7:11 p.m. CST


    by Rebel Scumb

    I also think it's great that Jackson is trying this, but personally would have prefered it was tested out on a stand alone project, and again that is purely from the standpoint of not wanting the Hobbit to feel too seperate from LotR. Even if 48fps is an unparalleled success, it will just mean that when watching in order, the series will take a dip in visual quality when going from the hobbit part2 to Fellowship.

  • April 24, 2012, 7:13 p.m. CST

    anyways I'm going to take off for the night

    by Rebel Scumb

    this was one of the more interesting talkbacks in quite a while and not one mention of rape or inappropriate references to under age actresses, or homophobic insults. How refreshing!

  • April 24, 2012, 7:15 p.m. CST

    Meanwhile, DJ FrameRate (aka Doug Trumbull) Chuckles and Sez

    by BackoffmanImaScientist

    One frame rate throughout the same film? That's kid's stuff, yo!

  • April 24, 2012, 7:23 p.m. CST

    reductive, sensationalist, utterly bullshit equivocation...

    by chaburchak

    Argh, I hate those! And the people that make them too...they're tricksy and false...

  • *"Some of the closeup shots looked like an old soap opera on TV,* said one exhib, who added that his cinema already has a digital projector to accommodate the change. *But the wide vistas were pretty breathtaking. It will take some getting used to, for sure.*!/Variety_JLD/status/194862710889005056 *48 fps also, unfortunately, looks a bit like television. But it does bring 3D to a different level. I think Devin's comment, that Gollum seems like he's actually there because EVERYTHING looks like video, is probably right on the mark. A year ago, I said this is exactly what would happen (, to much protest! I guess CG imagery is wrapping itself around cinematography, not unlike how computer graphics' attempts to look like *film* make many images look somewhat soft. I also predicted that high FPS would be fine for science, nature and sports, and the CinemaCon comments on the landscapes looking beautiful align with that, as well. Oh, well, OFF I GO TO MY LITTLE CAVE.

  • April 24, 2012, 7:25 p.m. CST

    bantuwind - well said

    by antonphd

    this is movies. the public will decide with their pocket book. let them. no need to act like anything is being forced.

  • April 24, 2012, 7:27 p.m. CST


    by blackmantis

    Most regular films are shot with a 1/48 speed shutter. So for the 1/24th of a second the frame of film is in the gate and behind the lens, half the time the shutter is black. If you shoot at 48 frames a second, you just leave the shutter open the whole time, and being digital the camera doesn't really have a mechanical shutter anyway. So if you skip every other frame to extract 24p from 48, every frame will still have the same amount of motion blur as if it was shot at 24fps with a 1/48 speed shutter. You'd never shoot film with a 1/24 speed shutter as its mechanically impossible. Only digital cameras can do it. Anyway, film shot with a 1/24 speed shutter looks very blurry. For an example, check out some of the jungle chase scenes in Apocalypto.

  • April 24, 2012, 7:37 p.m. CST

    Either way, it will still look awesome in 2D/24FPS...

    by Jay

    It can/will be "down-converted", so even if 48FPS is a bust, you'll still be able to watch the film and have it look normal if you're unhappy. While I enjoyed Avatar, I don't enjoy 3D or the dimmed theater screen that come with it. But on Blu-ray It looked jaw dropping. I enjoyed it so much more on my calibrated projector. Hobbit will be no different if turns out to be a failed experiment.

  • April 24, 2012, 7:42 p.m. CST

    More info coming!!

    by The_Mad_Groper

  • April 24, 2012, 7:42 p.m. CST

    Damn enter key!

    by The_Mad_Groper Can't wait to find out more!

  • April 24, 2012, 7:53 p.m. CST

    I turned on the 240hz TruMotion on my TV to prep for this movie.

    by Chief Joseph

    It took some getting used to. At first, it made the movies feel "cheap". Probably due to a mental association with cheap shot-on-video movies that were 30fps. I've totally acclimated to it now. Hopefully I'll be able to handle 48fps better than most.

  • April 24, 2012, 7:55 p.m. CST

    re: the "soap opera effect"

    by thot

    I've seen a couple of movies (in home) in the "soap opera" mode and found it to be distracting. To me, it gives the film a "cheaper" look, like someone used a camcorder instead of a movie camera to shoot it. Don't like it now but maybe I'll adapt......maybe.

  • April 24, 2012, 8:06 p.m. CST

    rebel scumb

    by Rupee88

    I see what you are saying and I could have been a bit too simple with my comments. I am not a fan of that "soap opera" video effect myself. But the technology sounds great and I just hope it will be given a chance to be embraced or rejected by the public, and for the right reasons either way. I will definitely check it out at 48fps even if I have to drive half an hour to see it that way. I concede that I may not like it as much as I expect to but curious to see for myself.

  • April 24, 2012, 8:11 p.m. CST

    So then... Jackson has now fucked up The Hobbit?

    by mdk

  • April 24, 2012, 8:13 p.m. CST

    If so, that's three for three, and he is outta there'

    by mdk

  • April 24, 2012, 8:16 p.m. CST

    Expense of the Added Frames

    by Alexndrph

    I'm curious about the impact on VFX houses, who would have to deal with twice as many frames as before. It's hard enough to render twice as many frames for the extra eye in 3D movies, but now doubling that again for 48fps? The render times & simulation times are going to be ridiculous, and you can bet the VFX shops are the ones who will have to absorb the costs, and some just won't survive it. It's not a huge concern for someplace as large and well funded as Weta, but any studio smaller than that may have a hard time dealing with it. It's hard for me to be excited about new advances like 3D and higher fps, just because I know it's always on the backs of the VFX artists, who are being treated more and more like shoe factory workers.

  • April 24, 2012, 8:17 p.m. CST

    Monty that is. sorry

    by dahveed1972

  • April 24, 2012, 8:18 p.m. CST

    Your write up is somewhat confusing, and I read it twice

    by Jaka

    It seems like you like it and don't like it, often in the same paragraph, sometimes in the same sentence! Too much techno babble, too. I get your explanations of the difference between the two, for the most part. <p> Anyway, I'm holding on to my reservations as well. At least until they're proven incorrect. <p> Question, though; how will this affect transfer to blu-ray and home viewing on our current HDTVs?

  • April 24, 2012, 8:25 p.m. CST


    by Rebel Scumb

    Likewise, I'm extremely curious to see it. No matter what, it will be unique and interesting cinematic experience.

  • April 24, 2012, 8:29 p.m. CST

    Let the Framerate Wars................BEGIN!!!

    by Onin Solstice

  • April 24, 2012, 8:45 p.m. CST

    48 fps samples

    by Teddy Artery Oh, and lookie here:

  • April 24, 2012, 8:48 p.m. CST


    by D.Vader

    I was talking specifically about the moments when Tom Hanks is "in the zone", and the motion is still real time but definitely is blurrier, not the moments where the action is more crisp and less blurry. I imagine that effect is achieved by doing the opposite of what you described ?

  • April 24, 2012, 8:51 p.m. CST


    by Rebel Scumb

    that first one at least appears to be played in standard 24 fps, but shot in 48 fps so hence just standard slow motion

  • April 24, 2012, 8:57 p.m. CST

    Trust me, folks.

    by gotilk

    After a few more minutes, all of your fear will melt away and you will be In the movie. I've seen 60fps (showscan) and it is batshit-amazing. But yes the eyes are not used to it. 48fps might even be a little less jarring to be honest. I bet some are calling it a gimmick, or even lying and saying it's a strain on the eyes. The opposite is true. The strain is GONE. The *window on reality* statements are all true. At first the brain will relate it to video. But that feeling will go away after a while. You just get used to it. But if you have already decided to dislike this, nothing will change your mind. Same thing that happened with some people and 3d. You just have it figured out already, and you don't like change much already anyway. Just admit it. The one thing I have NOT experienced at 48fps or higher is CG. And from what I've heard, it makes the integration with reality much more acceptable to the eyes. That's good news too, folks! Objects and characters with weight and presence that was not there before. This is a time to celebrate and look forward to. Don't let these early naysayers ruin it all for you. This is the future of cinema and the comparison Mr Jackson (if you're nasty) made to the switch made back in the era of silent films is a perfect one. Every presentation change like this (and 3d, which they did wrong the first few times) will be met with skepticism and yes, even hatred. People will call it a gimmick, and be wrong. People will call it terrible, and it will be a matter of opinion no matter what. But the truth is.... this is an improvement. This is an advancement. And once you've been through an hour or more of it in the cinema, most of you will be on board. And in some cases, emotionally so. Remember the stories of separation anxiety being told back when Avatar first came out? People who wanted to go back to that world again and didn't feel good until they had? They were extreme cases, yes. But I bet you almost anything it will even be worse this time. Remember to enjoy yourselves. Have fun. Don't take this all so seriously. It's going to be a BLAST!

  • April 24, 2012, 8:59 p.m. CST

    24 fps became standard because of sound, not vision.

    by Dr. Strangelove

    It's the slowest the film could roll and still have an optical track with enough fidelity to record decent audio. Prior to the sound era, film ran at even slower speeds, which is why many silent films look sped up today. It has nothing to do with how the human eye perceives light. It's all about cutting costs by using the least amount of film stock.

  • April 24, 2012, 9:03 p.m. CST


    by Dr. Strangelove

    It's the slowest the film could roll and still have an optical track with enough fidelity to *playback* decent audio.

  • April 24, 2012, 9:07 p.m. CST


    by gotilk

    The reason that *trumotion shit* looks like that is not because of the higher frame rate (or refresh rate in that case), it is because of the interpolated frames. In other words... it's because the thing is adding frames that do NOT EXIST in the original material. Watching 48 frames a second that ARE there is a completely different animal. What these people are describing is a familiarity with something similar. A sense that something is happening that they have not seen before, because that's the case. But when attempting to put it in context, they recall the closest thing they have seen to what their eyes did see. And that's where things get messy. Human interpretation and attempts to put new things into familiar contexts. It doesn't work. Just like the new 3d process (presentation) is very different than it used to be. Once you have been watching it for more than a few minutes, you forget the process and just fall into the story/images. It becomes less of a distraction once some time goes by. ALL new things are distracting at first, especially if your brain is scrambling to put it into a context.

  • ... the things I'll sit through Peter Sciretta's manboobs for... :-(

  • Also called *step frame printing* with a *step cycle* — those terms from the days of optical printers.

  • April 24, 2012, 9:23 p.m. CST

    Are you sure about that, JustMyLuck?

    by D.Vader

    I swear I heard all those years ago it was an in-camera effect using the shutter angle and/or aperture.

  • April 24, 2012, 9:23 p.m. CST

    Also, on the technical subject...

    by locater16

    Your eyes don't "get used to it" at all. That's just your brain, used to 24fps on a big screen, freaking out. If you saw it on a small screen you wouldn't blink twice, because tv, most youtube videos, and etc. are all at 30. You almost certainly won't care at all after 10 minutes max if you just go with it.

  • Shutter phasing was used to get a streaky/blurry/stuttery combat camera effect in certain shots, but that's not what you're talking about either.

  • April 24, 2012, 9:30 p.m. CST

    Go listen to your radio box, you Luddites!

    by bah

  • April 24, 2012, 9:54 p.m. CST

    Faster frame rates eliminate motion blur

    by galactic raider

    On a show I worked on they shot a scene at high speed to slow down the action. They decided they didn't want slow motion and skip framed the scene back to normal and it looked like shit. They came to me to see if I could put motion blur in it and make it look normal. It was actually very easy and looked acceptable. Hopefully, that is what they will do with the 24fps version. But I hate all those digital cameras. 21 Jump Street was shot on the Arri Alexa and I thought it looked horrible. The Hobbit is being shot with the Red Epic camera which is similar.

  • April 24, 2012, 9:59 p.m. CST

    And, no, I can't wait for the Trumbull interview either.

    by gotilk

    Seriously EXCITED for that one. Like a kid again. I've always been a gigantic fan of the guy.

  • April 24, 2012, 10:03 p.m. CST

    by soulless_swede

    @bardgal Plenty of AV gear a few years old doesn't support 24p, so why would 48p be any different?

  • April 24, 2012, 10:04 p.m. CST


    by gotilk

    Eyes, brain... point is... after a while you just get used to the change. What I was trying to point out was that the reason for the video comparisons are people's need to put everything they see into context. The closest they can recall is the experience of seeing higher frame rates on video. So they compare it to video, when it looks nothing at all like video (even though... in reality... it is digital video if it's not film). But yes, you do just go with it. Showscan was like that. In our case, the film/screen was so huge and the resolution so high, the first comparison I made in my head was instead with reality.

  • April 24, 2012, 10:05 p.m. CST

    An all-new high mark for AICN, an all-new low for Doug Trumbull.

    by justmyluck

    Trumbull shall overcome!!!

  • April 24, 2012, 10:06 p.m. CST


    by gotilk

    Seriously. But not those newfangled stereo jobbers. MONO and AM baby. That's what they need.

  • April 24, 2012, 10:08 p.m. CST

    Peter...Peter messed up the hobbit? NO GOD NO! NO GOD PLEASE NO!



  • April 24, 2012, 10:14 p.m. CST

    I wonder

    by LowDevil

    how the movements of the CGI 'monsters' will be animated without the use of motion blur? Thats a lot of confidence as motion blur during fight scenes is a must. This is very interesting to say the least. We dont really notice motion blur but im more than sure we will notice the lack there of. Cant wait

  • UGH.

  • April 24, 2012, 10:18 p.m. CST

    This talkback is SUPER geeky

    by Jaka

  • April 24, 2012, 10:19 p.m. CST

    I'm beginning to think Steve Jobs was right.

    by gotilk

    *People don't know what they want until you show it to them.* The problem with this is, I think, showing it to them far too early. I used to think that quote was arrogant, and it really still kind of is. But with certain technologies , given the chance, many people would rather see it not happen. A mixture of ludditism, schadenfreude and cynicism. That approach has in the past set technologies back 10 to 20 years. Look at virtual reality. Commercial development stopped, but the tech has been there since to make it 100 times better than it was back in the 90s. That was a clear case of people not knowing what they wanted/what they were missing. The only way it will ever re-emerge is if a company, a big one, takes the risk and just makes it and puts it out. Even the Ps3 already has the power to do it, it just needs the right peripheral hardware at the right price. The rest would explode with word of mouth. Nothing beats full 3d immersion, with head-tracking. Being in a new *place* is, however, almost impossible to describe fully without sounding like hype. You just have to try it. And once you have, you'll know. And you'll never be the same again. (and you'll be pissed off that the ball was dropped in the 90s)

  • We call it BBC mode. It's funny to hear others talk about it with similar feelings. I'm curious about The Hobbit, but it sounds like I'm not going to like it.

  • April 24, 2012, 10:22 p.m. CST


    by gotilk

    Don't buy the hype just yet. I seriously doubt that he *messed up* the Hobbit. And you have to remember, people are focusing on the negative right now. You MUST realize that the reactions were *mixed*. As in, some people were blown away.

  • Did they manage to make that scene not ridiculous? How they would handle that is something I have been wondering about ever since talk of a Hobbit movie started, since the scene is very silly in the book. Also, how was Evangeline Lilly’s character?

  • April 24, 2012, 10:27 p.m. CST


    by gotilk

    Others have pointed this out already, but one more time just to drive it home... Tru Motion is INTERPOLATION. The reason it looks bad is because they are ADDING frames that were not shot. With The Hobbit, every frame exists. It was shot at 48fps and being projected at 48fps. No frames are being added/interpolated. The Hobbit is not like Tru Motion. At all. The reason people bring it up is because their brains are scrambling to put what they've seen into context. And since there is nothing to truly compare it to, they think of the thing that seems closest. I've seen that tru motion thing in stores and yes, it looks kinda crappy. I've also seen ShowScan at 60fps and it looks NOTHING like tru motion. Not even close. It reminds me more of reality than tru motion.

  • April 24, 2012, 10:27 p.m. CST

    Has Harry publicly endorsed 48 FPS yet?


    Cuz I wanna watch 48 FPS movies on my HD-DVD player.

  • April 24, 2012, 10:29 p.m. CST

    And if anyone wonders what it will look like at 24fps?

    by gotilk

    Watch the trailer. That's how it will look. Except on a bigger screen. I watched the trailer on the big screen (sadly in 2d) and it looked just fine. There was nothing off about it.

  • Most evident in the contrasty shots.

  • April 24, 2012, 10:37 p.m. CST


    by gotilk

    Yeah, there were moments that gave away the fact that it's not film. But it still didn't feel off, or wrong on any level. Looked lovely to me. I didn't see it in 3d though.

  • April 24, 2012, 10:41 p.m. CST

    From the ShowScan wiki

    by gotilk

    *Trumbull also did research into frame rate, running a series of tests with 35 mm stock filmed and projected at various speeds, shown to audiences who were instrumented to biometrically test their responses. He found that as the frame rate increased, so did the viewer's emotional reaction.* It seems to have peaked at 72fps. How can this be a bad thing? Seriously.

  • Big difference, actually. *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.* (Showscan)

  • April 24, 2012, 10:53 p.m. CST


    by LowDevil

    So the motion blur is still being used and will be noticed on animated characters. Do you know of any examples in any film that i can see this? Maybe i have seen a film in 48fps and havent noticed? Doubt it. Im know a lot of work happens to frames post production. Does filming at 48 eliminate the use of all effects as they will be too noticable? Anyways, rumour is that both Avatar sequels will be shot at BOTH 60 and 48fps. Maybe this is where film is heading. Cameron is a smart guy, he is saying this format is far superior. Not sure until i can visualize it myself.

  • April 24, 2012, 10:59 p.m. CST

    Should I buy the Star Wars Saga on blu-ray

    by Miyamoto_Musashi

    Thats the only real question for me, or should I wait for it to come on hologram crystal ?

  • April 24, 2012, 11:12 p.m. CST

    Not sure if its been discussed here but

    by LowDevil

    Bill, Tom and Bert TALK!!!?? Wasnt sure he was going to go there. But he did. I am not sure how i feel about this just yet. I love the book and i trust in this movie.

  • April 24, 2012, 11:12 p.m. CST

    If you don't like 48fps...

    by GoFuckYourself

    Then GO FUCK YOURSELVES! You bunch of fucking communists!! Everyone who is "claiming" they hate it have not even seen it yet- and will no doubt be there on opening night to see the first movie in the theaters to feature the new frame rate. I, for one will be there. Thank GOD Steve Jobs didn't take most of you assholes' opinions and say, "Hey, 8-Track and Vinyl are fine! We make computers, who cares about portable music- walkman or nothing!!!"

  • April 24, 2012, 11:18 p.m. CST

    I'm REALLY curious! This sounds so polarizing!

    by Cinemajerk

    I find that fascinating. Truly. Such a bold move on Jacksons part to pioneer this new way of presenting movies. I can't wait to see for myself. I'm really curious. And I don't understand why people who haven't even seen it are trashing it. I find that totally ridiculous. Seriously. You'd think people who love movies would be excited, if not intrigued by this...and not outright dismissive sight unseen. I mean come on. Jackson wouldn't be trying this if he didn't have a vision of why it's an important leap in how movies can be seen. It will be interesting to see however if studios use the "upsale" tactic like with 3-D with this new technology. I guess they will if they plan to release a 24fps theatrical version as well. Wether 48fps will be embraced by the public or not remains to be seen. Obviously the footage shown wasnt finished...but it seems this technology will take some getting used to. We have been conditioned for generations to see movies a certain way. And although it's evolved Thru the decades...but this looks like a huge evolutionalry leap. A cinematic mutation if you will. I for one can't wait to SEE this footage! I am excited to see how my brain and eyeballs will percieve it. Aren't you?

  • You can freeze frame for the blur in this: CG animated characters will still be animated with software that has a frame rate and shutter angle. The software setting will be matched with the production footage. There will be less blur, but if something moves from screen left to screen right in four frames (like running past the camera in the foreground) there will be blur. Unless the camera's shutter angle setting is reduced (I've already discussed that in the TB, above). Which brings me to what I was talking about here LAST YEAR. Cameron and Jackson are very vocal about pushing higher frame rates as the next best thing because they need studio backing for the enormous cost involved with generating convincing CG at vastly increased clarity. The 48FPS pipeline is so much more involved, WARNERS didn't even have finalized VFX for CinemaCon — and their movie comes out in December. So, to answer your question, *certain* CG effects won't be *eliminated*, but they will have to be *upgraded*. From what I've read, trying to keep on top of this, the *video* look of 48FPS matches CG fine. For me, that's a very bad thing. Notice that Monty Cristo wouldn't use the words *photoreal* or *vivid* to describe Gollum. So, AVATAR 2/3 will most likely involve the same world-building and, with everything being artificial, nothing will look artificial, if you get my drift. As for Cameron, his CinemaCon high frame rate demo last year didn't involve visual effects. He KNOWS he needs major backing to pull off AVATAR 2/3 at 48-60FPS, and the live action demo was industry titillation. This is a hard sell, but Cameron (like Jackson) know they have the clout to pull something like this off. As we saw yesterday, results were very divided to the demo which was touted as having the best projection system on the planet. Even with THAT, they are still trying to get this to impress the majority. Did something like IMAX 65mm/15-perf large format NOT impress the majority? As predicted, nature, science, sports, space, etc. will likely adopt this (and have already in nascent forms). For cinema, it's going to be a hard sell for anything involving major VFX. Don't worry, PORN will go high FPS, of course!

  • April 24, 2012, 11:30 p.m. CST

    What would Ray Harryhausen or Willis O'Brien think?

    by Seven_of_Borgnine

    Or rather, what would their movies look like with the motion interpolation on? What would any stop motion look like? What would "Dragonslayer" (made in "Go Motion" which was a 24fps blur-the-model-during-the-exposure version of the same idea, that looked AMAZING) be like with it on? Special effects in general? (Apparently the worst victim of this tech are the shots of the actors themselves, though... everybody looks flat and costumed up a la old Dr Who)...

  • April 24, 2012, 11:35 p.m. CST


    by gotilk

    If it was *just stimulation*, I have to wonder why it had a point where it *topped off* at 72fps. Where *no further improvements were noted*. Hmmm. I see no indication, anywhere, that the *emotional response* was only stimulation. I have to be sure they gathered more than simple data that suggested only stimulation. As I read it, in context, it described more than that, with viewers sensing * a profound sense that the screen was a window onto reality*. Your assumption that it was simply stimulation is just a negative projection, as a GSR can be any number of reactions, including fear, anger, startle response, orienting response and sexual feelings. But I have never, ever seen a galvanic skin response simply referred to as *stimulation*, no matter how Mr Trumbull chose to describe it.

  • April 24, 2012, 11:38 p.m. CST


    by gotilk

    I would assume that Harryhousen and O'Brien would embrace technological innovation. BUT.... that's not why I'm responding to you. I'm responding to you because your name is THE BEST TALKBACK NICKNAME OF ALL TIME!! ROFL!!!

  • April 24, 2012, 11:43 p.m. CST


    by LowDevil

    Thanks so much for that. Very interesting. I of course have no worries about life at 48fps but the illusion of life at 48fps. I realize what you mean by the marriage of CGI to 48 'real video' being a bad thing but curious none the less. You have also pointed out something where Avatar differs from all the rest as 'everything will be artificial' so nothing will look artificial. Cheers

  • The other two measured responses activity in the muscle and it really a good thing to have higher FPS *stimulate* that, regardless of what is shown? The Showscan tests used the same footage. Also, the data on the Trumbull site is likely condensed or summarized for the public. Regarding 72FPS, that may have also been a technical limitation since it was film-based, and 65mm format. 24FPS 65mm runs at 112 feet per minute, so 72FPS would be 336 feet per minute, or five and a half inches per second. Film is known to shred at that speed.

  • April 24, 2012, 11:50 p.m. CST

    errata *five and a half FEET per second*

    by justmyluck

  • April 24, 2012, 11:57 p.m. CST

    Thankfully, my favorite theater won't be 48p ready

    by Razorback

    So, I will see it in 24p... whew.

  • April 25, 2012, 12:09 a.m. CST


    by gotilk

    SHRED at that speed? Yikes. Another good reason to go digital.

  • April 25, 2012, 12:16 a.m. CST

    I would say yes though. That GSR *stimulation* is a good thing.

    by gotilk

    The whole experience of film is evoking those kinds of reactions/emotions. To have a peak experience watching a film. So I stand by the GSR being a good way to measure the effectiveness of a new presentation technology. I know babies can be over-stimulated, as well as some mentally ill people, but in general being stimulated in any way is a goal for a filmmaker. But there are so many ways to be stimulated. Fear, anger, startle response, orienting response, as I listed before. As well as emotional responses. Sadness, empathy, sympathy, suspense. Even discomfort. I'm pretty sure, and I think I can be, that the audience didn't have a * I need to get up and run away* fight or flee response. I think that's safe to say. If that were the case, most people who went on motion-ride films would probably never want to go back again. Yes, a ride is different than a film. But we're talking frame rate here.

  • April 25, 2012, 12:53 a.m. CST

    The more i think about this..

    by LowDevil

    the worse i feel. I am an enormous fan of JRR and of Jacksons. If he intends us to watch this in 48fps then i will do so even if the option to which we are accustomed to is available. But, if i understand this right, there will be unbelievable clarity. This can be an issue. Maybe we will be able to tell more obviously that these characters are holding and wearing plastic or rubber. Or what about the costumes and makeup? Maybe we will be so involved we wont notice? If everything is so clear wont we be able to completely distinguish between character and CGI? I think film adds the grain or the gloss to help blend in CGI characters or makeup or plastic sets..? I dont want to pay attention to these things while i am watching. Maybe i am thinking too much.

  • April 25, 2012, 1:05 a.m. CST

    D.Vader, probably already mentioned, but...

    by SK229

    it's true they didn't choose 24fps because of the dream-like quality, but that doesn't mean it's not there. So for years, television and HD has been trying to get to 24fps (started with the Panasonic DVX100 and DVD players having 3:2 pulldown on-the-fly) to get that quality, and now it's all going back in the other direction? Honestly, if this is where movies are going, count me the fuck out... I don't want to be immersed in a real environment like I'm playing a video game, I want to have the feeling that movies have had for over one hundred fucking years now. Man... this is really depressing.

  • April 25, 2012, 1:07 a.m. CST

    Not being a geek....

    by MisterManReturns

    ...I found this unbearable to read.

  • April 25, 2012, 1:07 a.m. CST

    D.Vader is right about RedWhiteNegro being right!

    by Particularly Hard Vato

  • April 25, 2012, 1:25 a.m. CST

    I never even thought going to 48fps could be a problem

    by FrodoFraggins

    I guess I won't understand until I see it.

  • April 25, 2012, 1:26 a.m. CST


    by Industrious Angel

    I don't think they will do this for every movie - it's muc hmore expensive and how would a romcom benefit from hfr? On the other hand, nature docs or actions films could really benefit. Imagine KungFu movies at hfr ... those moves are so fast you really can't follow them at 24fps. And the "feeling" of movies being defined by grain and blur? This might be true in some cases, but in one of my favourite ones from last year (Tree of Life) they went to great lenghts to reduce graininess wherever possible and shoot with maximal f-stops to get enormous depth-of-field. And it looked fantastic!

  • April 25, 2012, 1:48 a.m. CST

    Fuck the Avengers


    this sounds tits

  • April 25, 2012, 1:48 a.m. CST

    Avengers Mid-Credit Scene is up!!!!!!! Here it is

    by ajt2111 Granted it's a bootleg,but it's HIM! Check it out.

  • April 25, 2012, 2 a.m. CST

    No motion blur is bigger deal than 48 fps

    by Bedhead7

    Just panning a 24 fps film camera would create a nice analog looking motion blur. The non motion blurring 30 fps video format has been around forever and nobody likes it. I'm not sure any amount of time could make people like non motion blur footage over the 24fps blur look.

  • April 25, 2012, 2:23 a.m. CST

    48fps had to debut with a big flick like Hobbit

    by Chief Joseph

    Imagine if they had attached it to a flop like John Carter or something. The format would be deemed a failure. Besides, the studios wouldn't greenlight such an experiment unless it was on a surefire hit like The Hobbit. I'm looking forward to seeing true 48fps. I'm NOT looking forward to the idiot that will inevitably invent 24-to-48 post-converting and all the hacks that will use it. And if it the format does take off, take heart. TVs and media players will probably create a reduce-to-24fps mode for people like you.

  • April 25, 2012, 2:51 a.m. CST

    48fps seems too high techy for The Hobbit

    by lv_426

    Middle Earth is a storybook land of castles, talking trees, magic, mystical elves, enchanted and haunted forests, and of course the rustic nooks and crannies lifestyle of the Shire. Super crisp 48fps cinematography seems too slick for Middle Earth. It seems to me that The Hobbit is not the best film to debut this tech, at least in terms of subject matter. If Peter Jackson and Neill Blomkamp had gotten to make Halo, then that would have been the perfect cinematic vehicle to unleash 48fps on the moviegoing public. I'm interested to see what 48fps looks like on the big screen, but I also worry that if audiences give it a passing grade, it will be forced on filmmakers by the studios, just like we've seen them nag directors about having to do nearly everything in 3D nowadays.

  • April 25, 2012, 3:06 a.m. CST

    24 fps vs 48 examples:

    by Bedknobs and Boomsticks

  • April 25, 2012, 3:08 a.m. CST

    gotilk -- VR

    by lv_426

    I'd rather the eggheads of the past few decades had gone balls out with pushing and developing VR so that we might now have more abundant mainstream applications of it instead of the current reality... were Facebook and Twitter rule the world. At least Neo didn't have to deal with hearing *Facebook this and Facebook that* and *tweet-tweet-tweet* all day long and even on the fucking news channels! Gosh darn it, where are the jetpacks, flying cars, sexbots, offworld colonies, and VR helmets we were promised? All we got was a video game controller that forces the player to flail around in their living room, and social media were we are still wowed by sending text and photos to people on the ARPANET.

  • April 25, 2012, 3:21 a.m. CST

    Stop the Haterade!

    by vinniepolak

    Can I log into AICN just once and not hear a bunch of shrill fanboys incessantly bitch about shit! For fuck's sake! I get the distinct impression that very few people on here know anything about film making. I mean, probably have never been on a set, never written a screenplay, never took a decent picture, never moved out of their mother's basement... Is there a site where people speak passionately about movies and how they enjoy watching them? Life is better with more joy and less hate. fact.

  • Fixing a problem that doesn't need fixed.

  • April 25, 2012, 3:37 a.m. CST

    I prefer 1 fps

    by Bedknobs and Boomsticks

    aka comic book

  • April 25, 2012, 3:38 a.m. CST

    Or slide show, ymmv

    by Bedknobs and Boomsticks

  • April 25, 2012, 3:40 a.m. CST

    48: The Rise of fps

    by Bedknobs and Boomsticks

    A movie about a director who wrecks cinema for all time. j/k

  • and some are cautiously optimistic about it. Nothing wrong with that, or discussing it. I'm curious to see what 48fps looks and feels like on the big screen, but I can't help worrying that it might be a bit odd looking. Perhaps it will take some getting used to? We'll have to wait and see how we feel about it once our peepers get a look at it. Even if 48fps ends up catching on with audiences, I think we'll have a long time before it becomes the standard along with 3D. Or maybe we are moving towards a post 24p 2D world of cinema were choices like film vs digital, 2D or 3D, and frame rate are left up to the director and DP to decide which to use on a per film basis? That would best outcome really. All this technical stuff is just part of the toolset, and shouldn't pigeonhole filmmakers into a cramped corner of limited creativity.

  • ....your grandchildren will scoff at you and your quaint 24fps film technology the same way we scoff at George Eastman for throwing Technicolor inventor Herbert Kalmus out of the Kodak office or for the leagues of directors and cinematographers who claimed that 'talkies' were vulgar art that would never catch on. Grow up and get with the programme guys, you're officially extinct and you're just crying at our own funeral. :P~

  • April 25, 2012, 3:53 a.m. CST


    by NZPoe


  • ...they're shooting in 48fps because it minimizes strobing, ghosting and (possibly) nausea and headaches from stereoscopic 3D. It's a step-up/solution/gimmick for 3D presentation. The 2D version of THE HOBBIT will be presented in stepped-down 24fps. So RELAX. Your Blu-Ray/DVD will still look the same as your LORD OF THE RINGS set, as will the film in 2D presentation at your local cinema. NERDS BE COOL.

  • April 25, 2012, 4 a.m. CST

    Here, trollie, trollie, trollie!!!

    by justmyluck

  • April 25, 2012, 4:02 a.m. CST

    by justmyluck

  • April 25, 2012, 4:12 a.m. CST

    Curious, but not enthusiastic

    by DocPazuzu

    I suppose I'm in the same camp as Mr. Nice Gaius and a few others here. I've not commented on 48fps in any earlier TB since I didn't want to be That Guy, but what I'm hearing so far is rapidly confirming my fears of what it will be like. I'm not going to condemn it outright since I haven't seen it, but this article has convinced me of one thing, namely that I'll be seeing it the normal way at first. I love LOTR so much and won't risk tainting my impressions of The Hobbit with a technical innovation so jarring that it takes me right out of the film. Nope, I'll save that particular pleasure/agony for a subsequent viewing.

  • Just wave your hand in front of your face.

  • April 25, 2012, 5:09 a.m. CST

    Or am I completely wrong about this?

    by Mr. Pricklepants

    Guess I'll have to see it for myself.

  • April 25, 2012, 5:24 a.m. CST


    by Rupee88

    Steve Jobs didn't invent the portable digital music player...not even close. It was around before and a lot of people had them and the technology was advancing with or without him. He marketed it better than anyone else but that's it. Go back to sucking his dead dick you ignoramus.

  • April 25, 2012, 5:27 a.m. CST


    by Rupee88

    you need to see an optomestrist

  • April 25, 2012, 5:37 a.m. CST

    it is harder than a new camera

    by v3rlon

    We have spent 80 years making and watching films at 24p. The change to 48p is a lot more than just speeding the camera up. The rate that you can pan, for example, changes with the new speed. The new visual clarity will reveal with great clarity the places where you skimped on makeup, costumes, or sets. It will better show the car driving in the back of your period piece. This was, in a lot of ways, similar to HD coming to the small screen. Only now, motion is also affected. A LOT of standards have to come up in doing a movie like this or it will look bad, simply because weaknesses that were always there will be more evident. Sets that looked REAL in 24p will reveal themselves for what they are at 48p. You will not beable to hide them with motion blur as easily as once you did. If, however, those weaknesses are addressed, I am always a fan of more.

  • April 25, 2012, 5:47 a.m. CST

    Lightsabers at 60fps

    by Fred Asparagus

    I once painstakingly developed a lightsaber sequence at 60fps (to match the temporal resolution of the source video). Trust me: Your complaints about the "soap opera look" will dissolve once you have seen one or two fast action sequences at a framerate that really lets you absorb it. Old conservative codgers can cry and cry but the future will crush their comfortable world anyway.

  • April 25, 2012, 5:47 a.m. CST

    60fps for AVATAR 2 and 3

    by mastes360

    Thats what Cameron said he's aiming for so this is old already.

  • April 25, 2012, 7:25 a.m. CST

    RE: 60fps for AVATAR 2 and 3

    by Mr. Pricklepants

    Well, you've got to start somewhere. Going from 24fps to 60fps is probably too big a jump right now, judging from the reactions to the 48fps Hobbit footage. Might as well start with 48fps. Anyway, I don't know what 60fps would look like compared to 48fps or 24fps. I need to see the 48fps footage first to make a judgment. Maybe Peter Jackson wanted to shoot The Hobbit in 60fps but decided to shoot it in 48fps instead, because he knew that some people weren't going to like it.

  • April 25, 2012, 7:28 a.m. CST

    mr. Incredible re: public enemies

    by Rebel Scumb

    perhaps to an extent, but my understanding is that Public enemies, and Collateral, and Miami vice (movie) were all shot digitial cameras and then transfered to 24fps filmstock for projection I can't remember though if these movies were shot on 24fps, or shot on 30fps. I believe it is 30 fps digital tape converted to 24 fps film, but I'm just guessing from memory based on how those films looked. Indie films have been doing that for quite a while (mostly between 2000-2010, shooting on digital cameras like the DVX100, then transfering the final edit to a film reel so it can be played in festivals and what not But now that HD cameras and digital projection have become a lot more common that technique has been phased out quite a bit

  • April 25, 2012, 7:35 a.m. CST

    But why not a 48fps on a computer?

    by joey72

    So why can't the trailer be 48fps? H.264 level 4 seems to support it.

  • April 25, 2012, 7:36 a.m. CST

    phantomcreeps You're wrong actually.

    by Rebel Scumb

    re: your comment that terms like frame rate do not apply to digital because their are no frames Because digital cameras, edit suites, projectors all run on the same philosophy and systems behind their original analog and celluloid counterparts Motion pictures still rely on a fast stream of sequential still images to create the illusion of movement. Just like a digital camera (for taking still photos) and a celluloid SLR camera still function on all the same principles of photography. If you line up a bunch of sequential images and show one after another at high speeds (24 images per second for example) you will see the illusion of movement Digital/HD cameras all use the exact same logic as traditional film cameras. So your example there was wrong I'm afraid. I do however agree with you in the case of portable music devices and whatnot. Personally I like to hold what I pay for in my hand, so not in favor of Mp3s, netflix, itunes, kindle books, etc. Without CDs, vinyl, DVDs, blu-rays, and actual books, what the hell are people going to put on their book shelves??? It's going to be a lot of bare walls in peoples homes pretty soon.

  • April 25, 2012, 7:39 a.m. CST

    You don't understand what they're doing.

    by tailhook

    When The Hobbit gets released in December you will have two versions of the film released to theaters. A) 3D @ 48fps. B) 2D @ 24fps. Nothing in between. Want to see the movie on a 2D screen @ 48? You're SOL. Doesn't matter if it was made for that fps, it'll be cut down and shown on 24. The purpose of all this is to try to enhance the 3D presentation to the point that you're convinced to pay the higher prices. Also expect to get the 24 on video long before the inevitable double-dip comes with the 48(that can be played on 24) See, one of the big problems atm with 3D is that people are quickly coming to the conclusion that they can see the movie just as well with a 2D presentation and pay far less. For 95% of the movies released in 3D(especially if upconverted), it simply just doesn't add enough to warrant the $4-6 charge. This is a way of trying to force you to pay extra with the reasoning that the 2D version will be the DOWNCONVERTED version.

  • Traditional celluloid film needs time to expose, even at 24 frames going through the camera per second, if there is not enough light the frames will under expose because they weren't exposed to the light coming through the lense long enough This is why sometimes night scenes in movies are a lot grainier, because they have to use 'faster' film, film that exposes quicker than the other stocks. But it tends to mean an increase in grain. But this is also why if you're on a movie set it might look very different than how it does on camera, a lot of times scenes are lit much brighter than they appear in the final product Likewise, if a scene is shot in slow motion (so shot at 48 fps, but projected in the final product at 24 fps) they may have to increase the light even more so, either by increased light on set, or just opening the apeture of the camera further in order to balance out that each frame of film is exposed to light for now half the length of time Likewise, digital/HD cameras operate on the same principle except it's a censor/chip which is being exposed and generating each frame of captured image, again traditionally at 24 fps. If the camera has to capture 48 fps it has to be fast and percise enough to work twice as fast as normal, but retaining the same quality In that case its a matter of software/hardware of how fast the 'computer' elements of the camera can run. Just the same as a computer running in your home may not be fast enough for certain tasks This is why very few consumer, and even not that many pro-sumer HD cameras have variable fps settings above 30 fps. But as with anything digital related, it's becoming easier to do so.

  • April 25, 2012, 7:49 a.m. CST

    dammit I wrote a really detailed post and it self deleted

    by Rebel Scumb

    Anyways, the summary with both film and digital the faster the frame rate, the less the film frame or digital capture through the CCD chip are exposed to the light, which risks under exposure, or capture quality reduction, so part of why this hasn't happened sooner is ensuring that is not an issue, they have to light the scenes brighter, and makes sure the cameras can run smoothly and quickly enough not to ruin the image

  • April 25, 2012, 7:49 a.m. CST

    oh wait, now the comment has reappeared...

    by Rebel Scumb

  • April 25, 2012, 8:05 a.m. CST

    Too bad directors are turning on film

    by Samuel Fulmer

    In order to turn out stuff that looks like shit. Same thing with Michael Mann on Public Enemies. You can't do period or fantasy with this "realistic look."

  • April 25, 2012, 8:10 a.m. CST

    Sounds like it will be ass. 24fps has been the norm for a reason

    by alienindisguise

    because it looks good and gives that different than real life feel regardless of subject matter. Focus on stories, not fucking with the frame rate. I'm just imagining the horror when a cgi heavy movie gets the 48 treatment. It will be the shittiest thing that any of us have ever seen.

  • April 25, 2012, 8:11 a.m. CST

    I have no problem with it looking like a TV video presentation

    by Ricardo

    It looks and feels better. It's just different from what we're used to, so what?

  • April 25, 2012, 8:14 a.m. CST

    The big problem with this

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Is that the old ones were film, this is video, so they won't have a cohesive look, much like Lucas with Clones and Sith (especially Clones which looked like really videoish shit).

  • April 25, 2012, 8:16 a.m. CST

    It looks and feels better-How so????

    by Samuel Fulmer

    If you mean it makes everything look fake and like it was put on by the high school A/V squad then okay, you got me there!

  • April 25, 2012, 8:26 a.m. CST

    I like trumotion and I imagine I'll like this

    by oolz

    People are such candy asses when it comes to change, even when it's better. 24fps is fucking garbage. Video games dumped that shit years ago because it's just not enough. You can't display detailed, fluid, fast moving action at 24fps. Why go through the trouble of making all these hi-def movies when the details goes to shit as soon as people start moving faster than a jog?

  • April 25, 2012, 8:40 a.m. CST

    According to some here a typical episode of Dancing With the Stars

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Looks better than say Apocalypse Now or Citizen Kane. Sorry, but this supposed realism is what's killing Cinema, and turning it in to nothing more than the bastard child of TV instead of vice versa.

  • April 25, 2012, 8:44 a.m. CST

    oolz re: 24fps is fucking garbage

    by Rebel Scumb

    So all movies in history are garbage?? It seems odd you'd even be on a movie website if you really thought was true. What are you... 10 years old?

  • April 25, 2012, 8:46 a.m. CST

    Samuel fulmer

    by Rebel Scumb

    The odd thing is, scripted television has never looked better, because they keep moving towards a traditional cinematic look. Look at how great Game of Thrones, or Boardwalk Empire, or Lost all look! And yet now films themselves are moving away from this!!!?

  • April 25, 2012, 8:50 a.m. CST

    rebelscumb you are talking out of your ass

    by blackmantis

    The standard shutter speed for motion pictures, with the amount of motion blur we accept as filmic, is 1/48th of a second. A film shot with a film camera at 24fps with a 1/48 speed shutter gets the same exact amount of light on it as a digital camera shooting 48fps with the shutter open the entire time.

  • April 25, 2012, 8:54 a.m. CST

    rebel scumb-Yeah but film is embracing

    by Samuel Fulmer

    The cinematography or reality television and General Hospital!!! Way to go Petey Jackson.

  • April 25, 2012, 8:57 a.m. CST


    by Rebel Scumb

    I wasn't talking about shutter speed though. Amount of light is always a factor whether you're shooting digital or film, the more frames that have to be captured per second, no matter what the method means a faster rate of exposure, or in the case of digital capturing of visual data.

  • April 25, 2012, 9:01 a.m. CST

    Samuel fulmer

    by Rebel Scumb

    Well regardless I am curious to see how this will look, I do agree with those who have said this is definitely the future for Nature documentaries and sports photography. Will it work for hollywood films? We'll have to wait and see. In an effort to make 3D less painful to the eye, I have no doubt it will be a huge success. I think the real question is how it will look if it is not also in 3D, and whether that is even something that will come up since it sounds like at least for the hobbit this frame rate is just for the 3D screenings. Who knows, it might end up looking amazing. I get more bothered by the true-motion demos that bestbuy and the other TV sellers are pushing as 'the way it was meant to be seen', which is ludicrous, because if the directors wanted the movies to look that way they would just shoot in 30 fps which would be the easiest thing in the world.

  • April 25, 2012, 9:10 a.m. CST

    I'm willing to give it a chance but

    by Samuel Fulmer

    If it looks like Public Enemies, just less grainy, than that will be tragic. I think that this tech has great potential for action films that take place in a modern setting, musicals, and certain types of horror films, but I just think it has a hard time working for period pieces and fantasy films but because it makes them look like actors putting on a show, and it's hard to buy the reality because it looks too real (if that makes any sense).

  • April 25, 2012, 9:11 a.m. CST

    Forget 3D. Just imagine

    by Gumbo1

    an IMAX sized presentation in 48fps !

  • April 25, 2012, 9:11 a.m. CST


    by blackmantis

    No, no, no...Shutter speed dictates the length of exposure. A film shot at 24 fps with a 1/48 speed shutter is being exposed for the exact same amount of time per frame as something shot at 48fps with a 1/48 speed shutter.

  • Why? Because this is what I've been geeing out about for years. The resolution of films has been great since DVD I believe. So when Blu ray and HDTV came along, I've always said I hardly care about a better resolution, the resolutions been great for years anyway. What they should do is bump up the framerate. Hell games have been running at 60 fps for years now and you definitely notice the difference. Differences like no strobing and less eye strain in general. Will it take a while to get used to? Of course it will! But people saying it will fail still live in the past. Like those people from the 50's who wouldn't believer television would take over radio. I know why lots of people are bitching. I truly do. I used to be one of those guys who hated Digital and thought it would never replace the charm of film. But guess what. It did. If a project truly asks for it to be filmed on actual film or 24 fps or even black and white without sound(as the Artist proved) a filmmaker can still opt to film that way. But in general 48fps will and shall take over 24 fps. The notion that it won't, is just plain stupid.

  • April 25, 2012, 9:20 a.m. CST

    geeing is the new word for geeking by the way

    by baronweazle

    Or so I tell myself anyhow.

  • April 25, 2012, 9:28 a.m. CST

    But but what about shaky cam

    by quicksilver80

    On 48 fps?

  • April 25, 2012, 9:30 a.m. CST


    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    Good to see you and well said. I definitely want to experience the film in the manner that PJ intends for it to be seen. However, I may just go the traditional route first (so as to avoid distraction) and then check out the 48fps version on the second go-around. If PJ has recaptured the magic, I expect to enjoy several viewings. :)-

  • April 25, 2012, 9:31 a.m. CST

    gaming isn't a good comparison though

    by Rebel Scumb

    The mediums of videogames (which I also really like) and films are not really the same thing at all, because gaming primarily relies on one unbroken shot of game play, where as films really draw their art form from editing, as well as depth of field. The director is emphasizing and de-emphasizing certain things using compositions, lens length, depth of field, shallow or deep focus, and how the sequence is cut together. If anything the medium movies are closest to are comicbooks. Higher frame rate is definitely a plus for gaming, because it presents the illusion of depth and smoothes movement in an animated world, and since gaming is dependants on the player controlling the movements of the characters, motion blurring and other cinematic techniques are counter productive. In fact I think games typically err in terms of trying to mimic movies. Gaming is enjoyable for a completely different reason than watching a movie is. That's my take on it.

  • April 25, 2012, 9:34 a.m. CST


    by Rebel Scumb

    I think we're both arguing the same point just in different ways. Overall what I was getting at is part of why something like this hasn't been attempted before is because the HD camera technology had to be at a stable enough place for it to be done confidently, since some were complaining this switch should have been made years ago.

  • April 25, 2012, 9:36 a.m. CST


    by baronweazle

    That has been the stupidest and laziest device of the last decade! There's a reason they developed steadicam and there's a reason Kubrick(without a doubt one of the finest filmmakers, especially when tailing about the technical side of filmmaking) instantly fell in love with steadicam. It's a fucking great invention! So if 48fps makes sure we get rid of shaky cam and welcome back steadicam, I will call it cinema's saviour! (sorry guys I'm ranting a bit, but I'm having one of "those" days at work)

  • April 25, 2012, 10:07 a.m. CST

    Video game frame rates?

    by Mecandes

    Generally speaking, gamers are used to seeing video game output above 48fps, right? I'm just wondering how that compares and/or factors into this discussion. Does it mean it's going to be easier for gamers to adjust to 48fps film?

  • April 25, 2012, 10:09 a.m. CST


    by quicksilver80

    But what will Paul Greengrass do then?!

  • Why'd they even bother to remake it?

  • April 25, 2012, 10:20 a.m. CST

    Paul Greengrass will stop making those shitty Bourne films!

    by baronweazle

    God I hate that franchise! I remember the first one. All these people claiming it was really good and Tony gilroy(love his screenplays for Taylor hack ford's films) had written it. So I convinced my buddy it would be a good film even though he thought it was Matt Damon doing an Steven Seagal impression. I hate it to be proved wrong, but afterwards I had to say to him; I'm sorry dude you were totally right, it was Matt Damon doing a Steven Seagal impression. and he was fucking awful to boot! Then Greengrass did the second one and I loved(if that's the right word) Bloody Sunday and I thought United 93 was a great film as well. although I'm not sure if he'd made that one already by then. Anyway I thought the second one had to be better than the first. WRONG! After about 40 minutes I had to walk out during something that I think was supposed to be a car chase, but I couldn't really tell because of the FUCKING SHAKYCAM! When the third one came into cinemas I had learned my lesson. I didn't went to see it and I never ever will. However long story short. Despite my rant, I think Paul Greengrass is a very talented filmmaker and I think he is one of those guys I mentioned before who will probably benefit from filming in 24fps(and or film etc.) if he feels its right for the project he's making.

  • April 25, 2012, 10:35 a.m. CST

    24 fps looks good for a reason!

    by adolfwolfli

    Roger Ebert has talked about how 24 frames per second is roughly in sync with our brainwaves. So, even though there aren't "frames" in our perception of the world, this is the speed at which our brains process images, and therefore has a calming, fluid effect, unlike video shot at 30 or 60 fps, which feels jarring. They're using 48fps to de-emphasize some of the issues that arise with 3D, so it's sort of band-aid solution they're trying to sell as innovation. This isn't innovation – video cameras have shot at higher frame rates for years and now all of them have a 24p setting because IT LOOKS GOOD. Blur is good. Slight strobe is good. This is what makes film feel like film.

  • April 25, 2012, 10:37 a.m. CST

    Hmm. Tough decision here...

    by SlickyVonBoner

    I've been waiting for this movie for years so I don't want anything to distract me so I think I'lll watch it in 24fps for the first viewing. Then catch it again at 48fps, cause I would like to see the action sequences at the higher frame rate. Sounds like fun... don't see what the big fuss is about. Relax geeks.

  • April 25, 2012, 10:39 a.m. CST

    The paradox of film and fantasy

    by Dreamfasting

    Every pixel you take out of the imagination and put on the screen is a pixel you are taking responsibility for. However, I also wonder if people in the industry might be too close to the technology of their craft to really free their imaginations when judging something new? If you are in the business of critiquing the details, more frames gives you more opportunities to spot of the wires and defects - you don't have that audience innocence that can ignore the tiny flaws. I sort of wish I could have seen it without first reading the insider buzz.

  • April 25, 2012, 10:56 a.m. CST

    Video game frame what?

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Video games are all still done in a computer (like computer animation right) so they will look better than something that is shot with actors. A new fully animated film at 48fps might look awesome, that doesn't mean a live action feature will.

  • April 25, 2012, 10:56 a.m. CST

    Unless we're taking about a 48fps Night Trap

    by Samuel Fulmer

    With CGI Dana Plato.

  • April 25, 2012, 11:05 a.m. CST


    by Rebel Scumb

    Every pixel you take out of the imagination and put on the screen is a pixel you are taking responsibility for.

  • April 25, 2012, 11:35 a.m. CST

    Here's a video shot in 2,564 fps.


    It's obviously for slow-motion purposes, but it's still pretty amazing to look at.

  • April 25, 2012, 11:48 a.m. CST

    Now that video is awesome

    by jawaburger

    I think the coins bouncing around was the clincher for me. Seeing objects in fast motion that are still crystal clear. I don't know how anyone can be upset that we are getting more information on screen than before. Also, many people seem to think that every single film from here on out will be made with 48 fps. This is just another tool that film makers can choose to use or not. I am sure there will be plenty of movies coming out, for a long time to come, that will have blurry action that is hard to decipher and see clearly.

  • April 25, 2012, 11:49 a.m. CST

    People always freak out when things change.

    by knowthyself

    Bold move by Jackson. I hope his experiment succeeds.

  • April 25, 2012, 11:51 a.m. CST


    by lensproject

    As others might have said, plenty of sports on TV is done at 60fps and has been for years. It's not revolutionary, it's been done. In fact TV since it's inception has always been at 60fps, it's just been split into to fields of 30fps alternating. It's the 'look' of TV. Film should look like 24fps. It's what makes film film. Even in the future when we have 480fps TVs, TV shows will produce their content in 24fps to create the 'look' of film, like they do currently. They could easily have done 60fps TV dramas for the past 10 years but they didn't, since it looks terrible.

  • April 25, 2012, 12:02 p.m. CST

    What I wonder is 2 things here...

    by Lord Elric

    First, hows does the 3d work with the 48 fps rate? How is the immersiveness of that? Also, I wonder how this will translate when it eventually comes to Blu Ray? Will we get a 48 fps version? Or this going to be a theater only thing? And how is this all going to transfer to, say, an IMAX screen. Btw, I refer to an actual IMAX and not those tiny things they stick in the mall multiplexes.

  • April 25, 2012, 12:09 p.m. CST

    The nofilmschool video looks nice

    by Samuel Fulmer

    But I would think only for special slow motion shots (which most of this stuff looks like what Zack Snyder pulls off with film and computers anyway). There's a big difference between an experimental film like this (that does look cool) and 48fps on a traditional narrative fantasy film.

  • April 25, 2012, 12:10 p.m. CST

    I have zero time for this no strobe bullshit

    by MainMan2001

    Makes everything looks cheap. No sir. I'll stop making films if the industry standards change. And I don't wanna hear its more like we see because you know what if I wanted to see through my eyes I'd go outside.

  • April 25, 2012, 12:19 p.m. CST


    by Monty Cristo

    I didn't fly to Austin for that ep of the show, I live there!

  • April 25, 2012, 12:23 p.m. CST

    @adolfwolfli 48FPS Vs. 24FPS

    by screenplay3

    It looks good because it's what we are used to. Any change is going to look different and strange at first. It's like when movies went from Film to Digital. It took awhile for me to get used to because I could tell right off the bat I was watching digital because film had a richer looking feel to it. Now digital has gotten to the point where it looks better then film.

  • April 25, 2012, 12:38 p.m. CST

    Half of you guys are making uneducated leaps of doom

    by Logan_1973

    Seriously, gather more data before condemning it.

  • April 25, 2012, 12:39 p.m. CST

    you had to compare to TruMotion! Ugh :(

    by soloaj

    1st thing I turned off on my TV. Horrible soap opera looking format that most people leave on that I have to ask them to shut off when I am watching a movie at their house. Amazing how so many just accept a movie looking either super zoomed or TruMotion formatted = horrible and than these same people screw up the sound = makes a movie un-watchable. At least The Hobbit will have a good sound design ;)

  • Because all video games are bad. Bad writing, bad acting, stuffed with cliches and derivative nonsense. We have a generation of people now who see the truly awful state of video-game storytelling as somehow normal and acceptable. Can't see how that's good for the future of film, or storytelling in general.

  • April 25, 2012, 12:43 p.m. CST

    All this gnashing of teeth and pulling of hair over frame rate...

    by conspiracy

    ...when my biggest concern as a film fan is the fact that 9 out of 10 films coming out of Hollywood are pure shit and wouldn't be good no matter what technology you threw at them.

  • April 25, 2012, 12:44 p.m. CST


    by Monty Cristo

    That's entirely accurate to my reaction. I found myself conflicted. The moment I was settling in, when they let a scene breathe a little bit, it cut and cut and cut and I was again unhappy. It was a very conflicted experience.

  • April 25, 2012, 12:47 p.m. CST


    by Monty Cristo

    Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. The reduction in eye strain was huge. After seeing more clips later that day, replete with blur, the motion blur became more pronounced in those clips, even in Pixar's BRAVE.

  • April 25, 2012, 12:49 p.m. CST

    public enemies showed perfectly

    by JAMF

    that using some new fangled tech for an old fashioned story/setting makes a turd of a film. this is gonna be a mess.

  • April 25, 2012, 12:52 p.m. CST

    Jesus Christ some of you people are retarded..

    by beatleMatt

    Do we need Hi-Res

  • April 25, 2012, 12:52 p.m. CST


    by Monty Cristo

    Not the ENTIRE troll scene, but the lead-up to dwarves showing up and some battle action. Looked/sounded/worked really well. You could actually keep up with what was going on, it wasn't all lost in a blur.

  • First of all, we're talking the look, not the writing. Second, to say that 'all' are bad is just not true. Nearly all, yeah. But play any of the classic LucasArts or Portal or the original Half Life for some innovative story telling. Heck, go to the Interactive Fiction website and play some of the annual contest winners there. It won't change your mind about frame rates, but your mind will be blown by some of the storytelling.

  • April 25, 2012, 1:08 p.m. CST

    48fps converted to 24fps

    by Boone

    <p>will look like 24fps shot with a 90 degree shutter angle—unnoticably stroboscopic, that is to say basically the same. That's why movies like Saving Private Ryan and Gladiator used a 45 degree shutter for their stroby looks. They did not use step printing, Wong Kar Wai does that a lot, and it's stroby with a LOT of motion blur, since it's shot at 6 or 3fps and step printed up to 24. Ridley used the technique on Matchstick Men, and Peter Jackson on King Kong. </p> <p>And to the guy saying they're going to use an open shutter, why would they do that? That'd look awful. They're probably shooting with a 1/96 shutter speed. Open and almost open shutters are responsible for the smeary look in Michael Mann's movies, and Apocolypto. But the Epic has a way more sensitive sensor than those older cameras, and The Hobbit is pretty studio-bound, so the double amount of light to shoot 48fps shouldn't be a problem. </p> <p>I'm worried it's going to look like butt. 30fps video doesn't look so good to me. I'm not a fan of 25fps PAL. That 120hz TV look is TERRIBLE. People forget that the Todd-AO format already tried this by being shot at 30fps, but that made the format more expensive to shoot and exhibit, and it really looked the same as 24fps, somehow. Maybe because it was film. </p> <p>I think the real problem is that the higher frame rates exacerbate the artifacts caused by electronic shutters. It'd probably be interesting to see a comparison shooting 48 or 30fps on film, digital camera with an electronic shutter (like the Epic or the Alexa), and a digital camera with a mechanical shutter (like the Alexa Studio). I have a feeling that the film camera and the digital with mechanical shutter would look pretty similar, and pretty close to 24fps. Maybe close enough not to justify doing it. </p>

  • April 25, 2012, 1:12 p.m. CST


    by comicsniper

    I have a slightly intelligent answer for you. The change to 48fps should have no effect on the length of the movie. It's like selecting a different audio format for songs you upload to your iPod. No matter if you pick a lower quality mp3 format or Apple's top-level AAC format, that 4 minute song will always remain a 4 minute song. Hope that helps.

  • April 25, 2012, 1:13 p.m. CST

    I wonder if 48fps take away from the art of Cinematography??

    by Dkev00

    I mean could you imagine Raiders of the Lost Ark shot at 48fps? I guess I have to withhold judgement until I actually see it.

  • April 25, 2012, 1:14 p.m. CST


    by Pink

    ... a wound beyond all healing. RIP dear Hobbit movie.

  • April 25, 2012, 1:20 p.m. CST

    For the people saying we hate change...

    by Bedhead7

    Go watch David Lynch's Inland Empire then watch Lost Highway. Inland Empire was shot at 30fps digital. At 30fps, everything great about Lynch's mood and style completely falls apart. I could not make it through the first 20 minutes. It is amazing how much of what we call movie magic is the 24 fps experience. It's not that we hate change, it's that we have already seen films running at 30 fps and they look terrible. 48 fps will look the same. People keep bringing up Public Enemies. That movie looks like 30 fps. I could not make it through that one either. I don't hate change, I hate 30 fps.The magic just falls apart above 24 fps.

  • April 25, 2012, 1:25 p.m. CST

    inland empire clip

    by Bedhead7

    This is what I'm talking about.

  • April 25, 2012, 1:29 p.m. CST


    by Rebel Scumb

    Yes, thank you for backing up the shutter/exposure issue

  • April 25, 2012, 1:37 p.m. CST


    by Dkev00

    Public Enemies was just a poorly shot film in general, unfortunately. Which is unheard of for Micheal Mann. It wasn't shot at 30fps though. They used a 360 degree shutter angle, in the forst shoot out, which made it look like some behind the scenes footage. It was really jarring.

  • April 25, 2012, 1:38 p.m. CST

    so glad I can edit...sigh

    by Dkev00

    *forest shoot out.

  • April 25, 2012, 1:45 p.m. CST


    by Boone

    <p>Thinking back on it, Gladiator did use some step printing in the Germany battle scenes (because they didn't have enough light), but it's noticeably different than the narrow shutter effect used later on. </p> <p>And here is a Todd-AO video showing film shot at 30fps. Some of the fast motion is a little different, but it doesn't really look like video at all: </p>

  • April 25, 2012, 1:57 p.m. CST

    Why is this shit lighting up the Internet all of a sudden?

    by Jeremy Jar Binks

    Come on people, get your jimmies unrustled. We'll all get used to the 48 fps, and there will be a 24 fps version available as well for stick-in-the muds. Wish everybody would just relax and not be afraid of the universe. (or should it be sticks in the mud?)

  • April 25, 2012, 2:02 p.m. CST

    Fincher and Soderbergh are the only two older

    by Samuel Fulmer

    directors that know how to make a movie with digital that looks better/on par/or about the same as their old films. The only gripe I have is that Soderbergh has gone overboard with the yellow urine tint to indoor scenes ever since the Informant. And as far as the democratization of cinema goes, I can't think of one first or second time director in the past five years who shot soley digital that gave us a movie worth a damn. Every time I see a good movie from a newcomer, it seems to have always been shot on film (like Martha, Marcy, May, Marlene). I think in a lot of ways digital cinema makes the talentless think they have talent because everything appears so easy. And then of course if you have idiots that think Metal Gear Solid and Gears of War is the way to tell a story, you further retard the "talent" pool. Hopefully we get some real talent to step up and make some films that blow us away, much like we had in the 1990's.

  • April 25, 2012, 2:03 p.m. CST

    BTW I like Inland Empire

    by Samuel Fulmer

    But yeah it looked like amateur shot shit compared to preaty much any other Lynch film.

  • April 25, 2012, 2:15 p.m. CST

    Drive looked marvelous. Shot with Alexa.

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    Blows every other non-Fincher, digitally shot picture I've seen away.

  • April 25, 2012, 2:19 p.m. CST

    To me Drive's night scenes looked incredible

    by Samuel Fulmer

    But the many of the day time and interior scenes still had that shot on video look to them with very little contrast, and at times were somewhat washed out.

  • April 25, 2012, 2:21 p.m. CST

    And Drive also had the urine yellow look going on with interiors

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Maybe not as bad as recent Soderbergh, but still preaty jarring.

  • April 25, 2012, 2:21 p.m. CST

    Composition and storytelling skills win the day

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    Even shitty low res prints of a 2001 or Citizen Kane would be more visually arresting than what a hack with the best gear possible would be able to accomplish.

  • April 25, 2012, 2:23 p.m. CST

    Valhalla Rising sold me on digital

    by Bedhead7

    But yea Fincher is the best.

  • April 25, 2012, 2:39 p.m. CST

    I'm not going to overreact just yet

    by Plathismo

    I'm trying not to get alarmed over this. Personally, I HATE the "TruMotion" effect when it's applied to films on TV, because it makes the films look a way that they were not intended to look. But even if the visual quality of 48 fps is somewhat similar, I don't think I'll mind it so much with 'The Hobbit,' insofar as the effect is intended, and not a distortion of the original artistic vision.

  • April 25, 2012, 2:45 p.m. CST

    @bedhead7, can't see anything about 30fps...

    by ABasketOfPups

    ...for either Inland Empire or Public Enemies. Shot on digital, both, but not at 30fps. IMDB, Wikipedia, general net searching, nope.

  • April 25, 2012, 2:53 p.m. CST


    by Boone

    Didn't say it was shot 30fps. He said it looked like it was. It did because of the shutter being open past 180 degrees. Actually, since it's an electronic shutter, it was running slower than 1/48.

  • April 25, 2012, 2:54 p.m. CST

    @adolfwolfli, Ebert has pushed Maxivision...

    by ABasketOfPups

    which is (well, was, it's gotta be all but dead now) film at 48 fps. Do a search.

  • April 25, 2012, 2:55 p.m. CST

    frame rate is the least of that IE clip's problems.

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    Wal-Mart camera, Office Depot lights.

  • April 25, 2012, 3:01 p.m. CST

    I'm excited about it

    by PorkChopXpress

    I love the idea of a giant window into another world, where things look and move like I would expect them to if I were seeing them happen live, in front of me. I'm really looking forward to seeing a fantasy movie unfold in front of my eyes where every pan is not a blur, where there's no softening of the images, and I can feel like I'm truly immersed. Film purists might whine, but the fact won't be long before no movies are shot on film, at all. The times are changing. To me, this sounds like the leap from SD to HD and I'm all about forward movement in filmmaking.

  • April 25, 2012, 3:03 p.m. CST

    Inland Empire

    by Boone

    was shot on a Sony PD-150, a prosumer camera that shoots 60i.

  • April 25, 2012, 3:09 p.m. CST

    Change sucks.

    by kells

    I'll see it in 24. I won't pay extra for change, just like I won't pay extra for Imax and I won't pay extra for 3D. And guess what? If I don't like 48, I won't pay for movies. And guess what else what? If people then insult me for being old and closed-minded, I will lose exactly zero minutes of sleep. Bottom line: if it looks like shit, it's shit. And if I THINK it looks like shit, then it IS shit to ME. And I won't pay for it, watch it, or accept it. I'll turn my back on it. And I won't look back.

  • April 25, 2012, 3:18 p.m. CST

    120hz TV's look like fast-forward.

    by Fawst

    Only not. I remember seeing it in person for the first time on the wall at Best Buy. It was an episode of Lost where Sayid is walking through the jungle. I was like "why are they fast-forwarding?" And then it hit me that they weren't. It was so off-putting. Now, I know this isn't what that will look like. But I'm sure anyone who doesn't like that "feel" of imagery is going to be wary. Meanwhile, I'm looking forward to it. I want to see that type of content done RIGHT.

  • April 25, 2012, 3:21 p.m. CST

    Professor Bedlam


    I used to be a projectionist too, and I am best friends with a guy that runs a theater. They keep two houses with Christie 35mm projectors, just in case they have a theater rental. I'm not sure how many modern theaters still show 35mm. If they do, I don't think this would fit on the platter, or dish as you called it, because of the extra film. I remember putting together Titanic, 12 full reels I believe, and it was "out there' towards the edge of the platter.

  • April 25, 2012, 3:25 p.m. CST

    I excuse Inland Empires look cause it allowed Lynch...

    by knowthyself

    To make the craziest, longest, most self referential film of his career. And I loved every dang minute of it.

  • April 25, 2012, 3:33 p.m. CST

    I HATED Gladiator's shutter angle

    by animas

    Man that was such beautiful cinematography which was completed ruined with that fuckin shutter angle.

  • April 25, 2012, 3:35 p.m. CST

    Inland Empire was freaking awesome.

    by frank

    I had no idea it was 30 fps. If it is good enough for Lynch, it is good enough for me.

  • April 25, 2012, 3:37 p.m. CST

    thanks for the reply, montycristo.

    by frank

    You are a friend to the talkbackers. Much like Gamera.

  • April 25, 2012, 3:43 p.m. CST


    by Mark Mendelsohn

    for an incisive and measured report on the 48 fps issue. It's nice to hear someone who can deliver a non-hysterical report on such a hot-topic like this.

  • April 25, 2012, 3:48 p.m. CST

    20 years from now...

    by Logan_1973

    The world be watching movies at 48fps and this entire debate will seem silly.

  • April 25, 2012, 4:11 p.m. CST

    @ logan_1973 4 years from now...

    by screenplay3

    We'll all be discussing Cameron's Avatar 60FPS.

  • April 25, 2012, 4:20 p.m. CST


    by DipshitKnight


  • April 25, 2012, 4:28 p.m. CST

    rupee88... real life motion blur

    by ufoclub1977

    Are you claiming you don't get motion blur when something moves in front of your eyes? Just wave a magazine in front of your eyes, but keep your eyes fixed in one position. The image is blurred. Human visual perception works that way. That's why if something like a car or person moves quickly by you and you are not following them with your eye, it is blurred and you cannot distinguish features. If you don' get motion blur, surprise! You're actually synthetic with a high speed shutter built in. They just forgot to tell you that you were manufactured in Japan.

  • April 25, 2012, 4:29 p.m. CST

    I like what Michael Mann does with digital


    This might take some getting used to but I'll keep an open mind. Change and progression is inevitable, but I also think the purists have valid concerns and arguments. We all experienced film our whole lives in the classic format, and it has it unique and special aesthetic look and feel, and charm. I think there's something about digital photography/film that seems a little off, it also has it's own qualities that feel somewhat artificial. After seeing the trailers for most of the big ticket films coming out this summer, I now am anticipating The Hobbit more than anything besides TDKR.

  • April 25, 2012, 4:39 p.m. CST

    but ufoclub

    by frank

    The moving object is not actually blurring, it is an optical illusion. Your eyes will still blur a moving object on a movie screen even if the image itself is not artificially blurred. If the goal is to replicate seeing reality, it is best to have as clear a picture as possible. It may be that people don’t want an accurate representation of reality from their films, but if that is the desired effect, a higher framerate and higher resolution gets closer to that mark.

  • April 25, 2012, 5:06 p.m. CST

    In memory of mercier, KOTB

    by Daniel Caputi, lol, lol...sigh. Oh bitches. Bitches, bitches, bitches . . . the KING doth DECREE this to be nothing more than Uruk-Hai poodo. It's a nice picture, but you know what the KING will go by? The KING will NOT use a pre-production pic, but rather the STINKING HEEP of 90210 IN SPACE Pt. II that is playing before most of the FELLOWSHIP (11 times as of this afternoon) prints. LOL, you know, the one with the TERRIBLE DIALOGUE and yeah, I LOVE those clones in the pic - tell me, BITCHES, are they the same clones that look like CANNED ANIMATION, circa 1990 that we see enter a ship in the trailer? LOL, SCHOOLED! Seriosuly, lol, this pic may have had some kind of reason for being had we NOT ALREDY seen the preview from EWAN MCGREGORS GREATEST CAREER REGRET PT II, knowing how ILAME it already looks. And please, please my LOYAL SUBJECTS, do not be brow-beat like a nickel bitch two movements short of a chamber piece - REMEMBER ANI-SYNC. As the KING also DOTH DECREE, ILAME and LUCAS will surely try to throw a fanboy bone on that STILL FLAMING FANBOY FIRE. And you, bitch, on a January eve in 2002, were SCHOOLED and brow-beat like a slut-pony on his way to the riddle-factory. WHIP-TASH! (The Balrog's bullwhip, to signal my departure)

  • April 25, 2012, 5:28 p.m. CST

    I remember my first blu-ray


    I felt like it looked "to real" and I didnt enjoy some films I had upgraded to the format. Now my "eyes have adjusted" for want of a better term and I can appreciate the level of detail. Not saying thats whats going to happen here but it could be the same.

  • ... then I hope no other films are coming out in December as there won't be enough screens available for them ! :-)

  • April 25, 2012, 5:54 p.m. CST

    This is not like 120Hz TV

    by yhtomitb

    They are not adding frames, like your 120Hz or 240Hz TV. This is actual frames being captured. It will look much more natural than any interpolated frame rate. The only reason that higher frame rates didn't appear sooner, was due to the expense of the film stock costing twice as much for the same 24fps movie. Hard Drives cost the same, whether your loading a 24fps movie or a 48fps movie. It's just disk space. Don't knock it until you have a chance to experience it yourself. I really wish that I could have seen Doug Trumbull's Showscan process in action at 60fps, instead of just reading about it in the trades. I'm quite excited at the prospect of higher frame rates. I'm scared of people upconverting 24fps content to 48fps though.

  • April 25, 2012, 5:54 p.m. CST

    As a VFX artist, my first thought was that this is going to double my workload

    by TheyPeedOnYourFuckingRug

    'Course, deadlines aren't going to double in length accordingly and so this would ultimately be a boon to India, where much of my job is already being outsourced to. My second thought is that everything shot at 30 fps (video) looks crisper and clearer too, more "immediate" -- and that the look is vastly inferior and less immersive than 24 fps film. I can only imagine what 48 is going to look like.

  • April 25, 2012, 5:56 p.m. CST

    franks_television : motion blur

    by ufoclub1977

    This is a really interesting point you brought up. There should be some tests done, probably with text flying by at 60fps to see if it's legible, or if the mind blurs it. If it was true (that we would naturally blur moving objects presented on a movie screen), then shouldn't even 24fps film shot with a high shutter rate be smoothed out by our brains with a degree of blur? But, this doesn't seem to be the case, For example the beginning of Saving Private Ryan in no way resemble how reality looks as far as motion. You don't blur the clods of dirt falling, they still seem to be snapshots. Maybe the flaw is that it is at 24fps. So... let's just look at 60i broadcast such as sports. Does the eye naturally blur something shot at 60i (which is even higher fidelity motion than 48fps) but also has a high shutter rate to eliminate motion blur? I'm not sure, but in my memory, I still remember startlingly jagged images of a football player running where it does not look blurred even at 60fps. But maybe I'm wrong. There might be a "real" amount of blur there. ___________________ Also there is a component to how we view moving objects in real life that is not even accounted for, and I have feeling it will be the next step. And it's funny because old tube style cameras unintentionally created this effect, but in such a thick way that it was defective to the image: When we see an object move quickly, not only do we blur it with our vision, we also assign a degree of transparency due to persistence of vision emphasizing the more constant background or stationary elements in the field of view. So if a movie was really trying to replicate our senses, there could be a slight degree of transparency introduced to moving objects. Another detail of real life visual perception I'm sorry to say is extreme shallow depth of field. And I'm sorry to say that because depth of field in independent cinema has become a horrible cliche with to extremes of bad taste in an attempt to create the feel of a "movie". I can't tell you how many times I've seen a proud 5D Canon filmmaker include a shot where only one eye of an actor is in focus, and think it looks so great! In fact, many great movies shot on film featured DEEP focus. I was just watching a bit of "Heaven's Gate" which heavily crafted in a visual sense, and it has shots of deep focus (deep depth of field where everything is in focus). _______________ Another characteristic of real vision: When I pay attention to what I see with my eyes I observe rapid eye movements of details all picked out in precise shallow focus that form a big picture in your mind of the narrative of your reality. I think this happens because of two things: 1. Our focus is so specific and shallow that we need to constantly shift our eyes to various details in front of us to understand what we're seeing. 2. If we fix our vision in a long shot, the image starts to fade and turn vague starting at the edges of our field of view. Our visual receptors rely on change. That's why if you stare at a word on a page without moving your eye, the surroundings start to fade out in an almost indescribable way. Our rapid eye movement could be implied in cinematic terms by rapid cutting of details in a scene. Contemporary editing does this a lot anyway, especially in music videos. Of course unless you're showing worthwhile details in a worthwhile story, this could be very annoying.

  • April 25, 2012, 5:58 p.m. CST

    A Mercier, KOTB reference???!!!

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    Boney Moronie wins the Talkback. Well played, sir.

  • April 25, 2012, 6:23 p.m. CST

    Bottom Line

    by Alexndrph

    The bottom line for me is that a bunch of people saw 10 minutes of The Hobbit, and almost no one came out saying "Holy shit, I just saw 10 minutes of The Hobbit!!! It was awesome!!!" The medium he chose is so distracting that no one's paying attention to the movie. That right there is a huge problem.

  • April 25, 2012, 6:48 p.m. CST


    by MooseMalloy

  • April 25, 2012, 6:58 p.m. CST


    by AuDog8

    Leave what the fuck alone? Here;s a tip: tecnology is always going to advance at the bequest of those who have EARNED THE FUCKING RIGHT to make such advances. IE what the fuck have you accomplished? Don't like it? Frack off and don't buy a ticket. Stay downstairs in yer Momma's basement and whine. Maybe get your hand off yer wanker, read some news and buy a clue...This kind of advance in media is only the beginning, REALLY. Douche

  • Let's watch him foolishly try to claim its another inside joke with his dad. Facepalm.

  • April 25, 2012, 7:05 p.m. CST

    I think Harry quickly erased that mistake

    by D.Vader

    Smart man. He's learned from Omni.

  • That worked out ok. Stop whining.

  • April 25, 2012, 7:15 p.m. CST

    it sounds to me

    by Chad

    like this is just a case of the audience adjusting. When movies were first introduced, people had no idea HOW they worked. You had to get used to the way the shots worked together to tell a story in the most BASIC ways that all of us today intuitively understand because *we were born surrounded by the format*. (Cutting back and forth in a conversation between two people flows perfectly for us because it has been ingrained in us daily since birth. Imagine how unsettling it would be to try to visually follow not only that standard technique, but all of the standard and not-so-standard techniques as a person who had never seen a "moving picture" before. Every cut would be a distraction UNTIL you got used to how such editing works, and what it looks like.) Later, sound was introduced, and we had to intuitively figure out that THAT sound was in the imagined world we were watching, and THIS sound was not. THAT sound is people talking to each other, and THIS sound is violins to add to the mood. THAT sound is a branch breaking that scares our hero, and THIS sound is the thoughts in his head because it has a weird echo, his lips are not moving, and no one is responding to what he's saying. Later still color was added to the silver screen. COLOR! Who wants to see all that gaudy crap in the "land of Oz"? Gimme a break. It hurts your eyes, really, as I'm not used to seeing moving things in color. I'd rather imagine what color the yellow brick road is. Who wants to SEE the yellow? It ruins the dream quality of the silver screen! ... ...I have a sneaking suspicion that very young children are not going to notice or care that there isn't enough blur when there is movement across the screen, and they are certainly not going to grow up and demand more blur...less color...or less sound. This is one of the rare instances where the technology might be outpacing the public's ability to adjust, but not by much. (And this is from a dude who thought cell phones would never catch on because, I mean, who wants to be called wherever they go? And actually, I still don't understand that--nor do I have a cell phone.)

  • April 25, 2012, 8:03 p.m. CST

    Duder at Variety summed it up pretty well:

    by Logan_1973

  • April 25, 2012, 8:09 p.m. CST

    Shit! I refuse to watch the 48, i don't like it

    by LegendarySpartanBlood

  • April 25, 2012, 8:16 p.m. CST

    People who have earned the right to change the technology

    by Rebel Scumb

    While I don't agree with that sentiment, I would point out that the people all walking out of this presentation dismayed are theatre owners, The people who stand to gain the most from it if it's a good idea. I'm sure when 3D was resurrected a few years ago and they saw Avatar test footage presented they weren't scratching their heads thinking 'this is awful', they probably saw that this was going to make them a shit load of money These are the business men & women who make their bread and butter on theatrical presentation, and if they are walking out of the preview bemused and unsure, than that is a bit different then just some geeks online debating it without having seen it. And as was stated above, this is a fair amount of people who just saw the Hobbit previewed, and aren't even discussing the merits of the content, so it must have been fairly jarring if that was the case.

  • April 25, 2012, 8:30 p.m. CST

    I haven't seen it so I have no opinion at this point

    by Smartacus

    Thank you for reporting on this Monty Cristo and I'm looking forward to seeing it for myself but a honestly can't imagine any way I would be able to comment on this intelligently without seeing it in person.

  • Peter Jackson has never made a decent film in his entire life. However, as a tech demo, this movie is interesting. 48fps is the way to go.

  • April 25, 2012, 9:10 p.m. CST

    interesting stuff, ufoclub

    by frank

    This is raising a lot of complex questions, and I don’t know much about it, to be honest, but I think it is really good that filmmakers are starting to push the envelope with visual technology. All of these experiments might not prove to be successful, but it is exciting to see the innovations anyway. And if people do end up hating 48fps (or 60 or whatever) then the market should reflect that, I think, and and in that case it should go away. I am kind of thinking that it is going to be something people will like once they get used to it, though I will have to wait until December to make an informed judgement.

  • April 25, 2012, 9:44 p.m. CST

    - Peter Jackson has never made a decent film in his entire life. -

    by Monroville

    Yes, other than DEAD ALIVE, HEAVENLY CREATURES, THE FRIGHTENERS and maybe THE LORD OF THE RINGS. And maybe MEET THE FEEBLES and BAD TASTE... but other than that, yes, you are correct.

  • April 25, 2012, 10:04 p.m. CST

    48fps looks amazing, expecially with COLOR CORRECTION

    by Proman1984

  • April 25, 2012, 10:33 p.m. CST

    Re: SamuelFulmer

    by SK229

    GREAT POST (the one about Fincher and Soderberg). I agree with every word.

  • April 26, 2012, 12:04 a.m. CST

    48 FPS and Slow Motion

    by peterclay65

    Does this mean that in order to do slow motion shots they will need to shoot those scenes at 96 FPS, cause I think I read somewhere that they shoot slow motion shots at 48 FPS now to keep the smoothness there when it's played back at 24 FPS.

  • Beat that!

  • April 26, 2012, 1:24 a.m. CST

    48fps not better...

    by Vertex

    48fps is not better for EVERYTHING. It's better for sports, news, etc. It's better for getting a feeling of raw, reality. But it's not necessarily better for creating a dreamlike, larger than life experience. Why do you think filmmakers sometimes shoot at 12fps to portray experiences like shell shock? Because the stylized motion creates a surreal feeling removed from reality. And a little bit of that is GOOD for storytelling.

  • April 26, 2012, 1:51 a.m. CST

    anyone who has ever dabbled with photoshop can tell you

    by Arcadian Del Sol

    that when you ramp the clarity up on a photo, there comes a point where it actually starts to look worse, and adding back a bit of blur makes it look more real. This "soap opera effect" of as I call it, "handycam cinema", is not good. It makes even the best films look like expensive university projects. It distracts me. I saw the Downey Jr Sherlock Holmes movie on a TV that did this, and the whole movie looked like a theater production with flat cardboard backdrops for buildings. It was terrible. I opted to not finish the movie and wait to see it on an older television that wasn't quite so "clear".

  • April 26, 2012, 3:03 a.m. CST

    I'm a gamer, therefore more fps = good in my book

    by photoboy

    I love TruMotion or Motion+ or whatever every company has called their motion interpolation algorithm. Making images smoother is always good in my book. Why cinema has stuck with such a low frame rate for so long baffles me. I'm going to be an arsehole and say people who want 24fps over 48fps are the same types who wanted movies to stay silent or to stay in black and white. Get with the now grandad!

  • Otherwise, fuck it. I'll wait till it's out on bluray. I'm not going to let some bullshit gimmick ruin the return to Middle Earth I've been waiting almost a decade for.

  • April 26, 2012, 4:52 a.m. CST

    Pretty sure this is not gonna happen

    by Vern

    If it took that many words to explain why people should be open to the POSSIBILITY that it only SEEMS like it looks terrible, then I'm pretty sure the theater owners are gonna want to spend $10,000 per projector for this. But if they do maybe they could print off this article and pass it out to try to explain to their customers what they're watching and that if they can get used to it that it might actually look good in some ways with certain footage.

  • April 26, 2012, 7:41 a.m. CST


    by Industrious Angel

    As long as film was film (= lots of celluloid) it wasn't really possible outside speciality products (IMAX). A standard 90min 35mm film had 6 heavy reels (which had to be changed during projection) - with 48fps you'd have 12 reels and double the switches. HFR depends on digital projection - and THAT depended on 3D, without 3D most of our theaters still would be analog. So, in a way, HFR only became possible through 3D.

  • April 26, 2012, 8:17 a.m. CST

    120 Hz

    by jawaburger

    Do people know that you can turn that off. I have seen several posters say they can't stand watching stuff with "Trumotion" or "120 Hz" or whatever. Please, just go into your TV's menu and shut it off and quite complaining.

  • April 26, 2012, 8:18 a.m. CST

    @vertex You are not making sense.

    by screenplay3

    You say some filmmakers film certain scenes at 12FPS for dreamlike quality? Yes, that's called slow motion, and you can still do that while filming 48fps. You don't have to full on do 48fps and nothing else. You can still do the same film techniques that are used while filming 24fps.

  • April 26, 2012, 8:43 a.m. CST

    An analogy for losers who think it's an improvement

    by lensproject

    A nice camera lens has a shallow depth of field, putting one plane in focus and the rest out of focus. But the people griping about 24fps here by analogy would say, "blurriness is outdated, give me a lens that shows EVERYTHING IN FOCUS!" As if more information is always better.

  • April 26, 2012, 9:10 a.m. CST

    @ lensproject

    by screenplay3

    That's not what people are saying. People are saying that 24FPS is an outdated way of filming a movie that isn't even shot on film anymore. That's like saying lets move back to analog TV, because digital and HDTV is too REAL LOOKING!

  • April 26, 2012, 9:38 a.m. CST


    by Industrious Angel

    The most beautiful film last year was "Tree of Life". Everything was in focus, they had enormous depth-of-field. It's the choice of the filmmaker. A "nice" camera lens is one that allows you different choices, cheap equipment can only give you shallow depth-of-field because it catches less light.

  • April 26, 2012, 9:48 a.m. CST

    Tree of Life was not that great visually

    by alienindisguise

    Nothing technically astounding about it. Just a bunch of shots aimed at the sun and too close to peoples fucking what?

  • April 26, 2012, 9:57 a.m. CST

    Seriously Alienindisguise?!? have you actually seen that film?

    by baronweazle

    Cause it kinda blew me away visually.

  • April 26, 2012, 10:11 a.m. CST


    by Industrious Angel

    I do a little photography on my own, for my job but also as a hobby, and I can assure you that Tree of Life is absolutely astounding. And if you don't believe me (after all, you don't know me^^), the ASC gave Emmanuel Lubezki last year's award for best photography for "Tree of Life". And if you don't know what the ASC is, you're maybe on the wrong internet site.

  • April 26, 2012, 10:53 a.m. CST

    alienindisguise is an example of just how spoiled we've become.

    by Jethro Bodine

    Even commercials these days are beautifully shot, so when something like Tree of Life comes along, something that aspires to be high cinematic art looks beautiful, it's simply dismissed as nothing new or spectacular. Whether you like Tree of Life or not is beside the point here. Pretty much all of the film's detractors, of which there are many, have even lauded the beauty of the thing.

  • April 26, 2012, 1:59 p.m. CST

    48fps? No thank you...

    by Wes_Reviews_

    I prefer the movies I watch not to look like soap operas, badly calibrated HDTVs, and videotaped plays. If this is the future, I'll likely stop watching new movies altogether in about 3-5 years.

  • 70mm film, shot and projected at 60 fps. Stunning. Just jaw dropping awesome. I saw the Luxor show in Vegas back in the 90's and it looks REAL. Like looking through a window real. Not realistic, or like the Viewmaster-like Real 3D stuff. It looks like reality. It really has to be seen to be believed. 48 fps is a step in the right direction. Of course, 60 fps would REALLY suck for stop motion animators.

  • April 26, 2012, 4:05 p.m. CST

    If you were lucky enough to see Showscan...

    by tintab will remember it was like 3D without the glasses. 65mm film running at 60 fps! it was like there was a window in the cinema. It will be interesting for filmmakers to work with the new clarity especially those who favour stylization. For example, what will soft focus look like at the higher frame rate?

  • April 26, 2012, 11:19 p.m. CST

    Average Joe and Jenny

    by The_Red_Avenger

    Let's face it your average shmoe going the cinema probably won't even notice. They may notice a difference but can't quite work it out. Then like 3D they'll adjust and watch the movie. When it comes out on DVD and Blue Ray it will be converted to the 29.97fps that America uses or 25fps that we in the UK use. It may be digital but it will still use these standards. for those of you thinking the soap opera effect you may be interested to know that BBC was quite clear in the UK but had a fuzzy sheen on it in the USA - exactly the same as the American Studio shows did over here. In our own frame rates it looked ok as did yours. So I doubt it will be as huge an issue as you think. Sure it may disorientated people for a few minutes like 3D does but you'll settle down and watch it without thinking. Also I doubt the majority of people will even know that it's shot in 48fps. They'll just see the pretty pictures and enjoy the movie oblivious to this controversy.

  • Gotta see the stuff first. But it kinda makes sense to go that step, unlike 3D.

  • April 27, 2012, 5:41 a.m. CST


    by Cedric Ford

  • April 27, 2012, 9:04 a.m. CST

    This may be one of the biggest debacles in film history...

    by elsachmo

    I have literally not seen one person anywhere that said it looked good in any way. The words "cheap telenovela" and "looks like 'I, Claudius" are used quite often. I haven't seen any of it, but I think if this is the initial reaction from almost 100% of the viewers, it's going to be bad. As a filmmaker myself, I can't even understand why you would want your film to look like cheap video by going to 48fps.

  • April 27, 2012, 10:13 a.m. CST

    A new tool for the canvas

    by Bent

    As a student of Animation and Media I favor the increased frame-rate and am looking forward to seeing the end result. Increased frame-rate is just another tool an artist can use to paint their vision. It's digital, so it can always be downscaled at any point. In fact you can do more with it and control where and when you want that action blur to happen. There have been tools around for a long time to put grain, haze, dirt etc into film in post-production. Most people don't realize this. I'm all for the best visual that i can get in a theater, but ultimately it's the filmakers that decide how a film looks, not the frame-rate.

  • April 27, 2012, 10:17 a.m. CST

    Tree of Life was NOT all in focus

    by lensproject

    Looking at the trailer, the shots at :20, :24, :27, :29, :31, :44, :45, :50, :53, :57, 1:00, 1:05, 1:07, 1:09, and 1:10 have shallow depth of field.

  • April 27, 2012, 10:22 a.m. CST

    @ screenplay3

    by lensproject

    Film took many years to settle on 24fps as the preferred speed. It's not inherent in the technology. And as I've said above we've been watching 60fps HDTV for a decade and no one things that looks better than 24fps film. 30fps TV (which is actually interlaced 60fps) has been around for a much longer time. More fps does not equal better, just like more things in focus in a shot does not equal better. There's an aesthetically pleasing quality to seeing 24 still images every second and having our brains do the work of turning that into the illusion of movement. Seeing 60fps approaches an uncanny valley where it just looks phony to us.

  • SPOILER: One report says there is a scene that has Radagast on a sled being pulled by giant jack rabbits! There is also some report about the White Council discussing how the Nazgul had been imprisoned in tombs by the Dunadun! What the hell is going on here?

  • April 27, 2012, 11:44 a.m. CST

    More fps does not equal worse either.

    by tailhook

    Its simply a different medium with a different feel and its up to the directors and cinematographers and what not to take full advantage of that medium when dealing with movies, which has never been done. One of the reasons that soap operas and telenovelas look cheap is why they've always looked cheap, they're always done on a shoestring and lack the funds and talent for big budget productions. Its no different than when silent went to sound, when black & white went to color, and when film went digital. There is always an old guard convinced that what they know and what they are used to is better than what they don't. Its the audience and the box office that will have the final say, but 48fps and more exactly 60fps is the only thing that will save the investments made in 3D projection. Its still thriving overseas, but eventually the rest of the world will catch up and not pay a premium for that medium, if it doesn't provide tangible and sustained benefits over 2D that justify the added cost.

  • April 27, 2012, 11:46 a.m. CST

    And when people get used to projection and production @ 60 fps

    by tailhook

    Its film that will look cheap.

  • April 27, 2012, 11:55 a.m. CST

    The soap opera look?

    by Blue_Demon

    You guys are scaring me. I've seen that TruMotion in electronics stores. Yes, it has a look of immediacy that is kinda freaky...but I like my movies with a bit of dreamy haze to them. Movies for me are Another World (I know, fucking cheesy) and this "Video Verite" has a way of pulling me out of the movie. Can you imagine a horror film shot like this? Talk about removing the atmosphere! None of this will stop me from seeing the Hobbit (Fuck, rabid grizzly bears couldn't stop me from seeing The Hobbit) but I still wish it would be at 24 frames per second. Ehh...we'll see. It may grow on me.

  • April 27, 2012, 11:59 a.m. CST

    Hope you're right, tailhook...

    by Blue_Demon

    (about us getting used to projection at 60fps, but I hope film will never look cheap. Rather, I hope that it becomes what black and white film did...a different kind of beauty.

  • April 27, 2012, 12:20 p.m. CST


    by Michael Tyree

    ...surely you weren't expecting a faithfull re-stelling of the book Hobbit, were you? Hoo-hah! That kwazy Wadagast and his mighty Morgul-wabbits! Er, yeah, sure...I remember the Nazgul being imprisoned by the Dunedain. It's in the Mythical Appendix Y to Jackson/del Toro's " Re-imaginedGuide to Middle-earth." Read the book to your kiddies now folks because after watching this, the book will seem too tame for Umerica fer yer varmints.

  • April 27, 2012, 1:39 p.m. CST

    I'm encouraged

    by Rick Evans

    I'm encouraged by this article. All the other articles seem to exhibit an aura of doom and gloom, pretty much declaring 48fps dead before it even begins. This article gives me hope that 48fps and higher frame rates is the future. It's clear some scenes worked and most of the scenes were not even close to being finished. I think this demonstration was more about how 3D looks at 48fps, than how the image looks at 48fps (which unfortunately was lost translation). Monty made a very important distinction here. While many people who saw the demonstration says it looks like video, Monty made it clear it does not look like video. It looks like 4K at 48fps. That is every pixel is unique, with the entirety of the image appearing vivid, sharp, bright and indeed jarring at first. There is so much information being presented to us, that the image is different from what we are used to. Given much of the scenes were not finished, I expect to see an impressive piece of art this coming December. But I fully expect there to be detractors.

  • April 27, 2012, 2:21 p.m. CST

    Appreciate an explanation

    by TwelveMind

    If it's shot in 48fps, wouldn't it be slow-mo when projected at 24fps? Or, do they digitally manipulate the image to allow projection @ 24fps?

  • April 27, 2012, 2:32 p.m. CST


    by lensproject

    They would just convert it to show every other frame to show it at 24fps.

  • April 27, 2012, 2:35 p.m. CST


    by lensproject

    People are used to projection and production at 60fps. It's called HDTV. I've been working in it for 10 years in video production. When you want your footage to look cheap and video-y, you can use 60fps. Watch an HDTV local news broadcast for that right now. When you want your footage to look good, you shoot at 24fps. Any takers on a bet whether 20 years from now 24fps will still be the standard for narrative filmmaking?

  • April 27, 2012, 4:13 p.m. CST


    by Logan_1973

    You're right, and I agree. I work in HD video production too and the look of live TV is vastly different from what we are used to seeing in the theatres; and I hope everyone notices that I said different, not worse. The real issue is we're too used to seeing that 24fps look for all these years. If we were brought up on 60 or 48 it wouldn't be an issue. When I watch live sports in HD I often wonder what movies would look like with that kind of clarity. I guess we're about to find out...

  • April 27, 2012, 4:27 p.m. CST

    Thank you for this unbiased, well presented article.

    by denise quesnel

    After reading many of these comments, I don't know how you can handle it. It seems like most people here didn't even READ your article, just skimmed and made up their own story so they could bitch and complain. HFR (High frame rate) filming specific to 3D was utilized with the intent on reducing if not eliminating all motion artifacts, flicker and jutter that is KNOWN to cause viewer discomfort. Studios are taking accountability over the fact that their productions can be harmful to viewers. The American Optometric Society has gone as far as to publish a public health report entitled "3D in the classroom" on demonstrating how individuals perceive a 3D image differently. Everyone who declares to be proficient or an expert in the realm of Stereo 3D should read it. The thing that has not been mentioned here, and aught to be, is that a frame rate is not so much a format or standard anymore as it is a TOOL. The same goes for 3D. It is an opportunity to 'create' utilizing a different set of tools, and NO ONE is going to take away the old tools. We are enjoying a period of experimentation and it is absolutely premature to condemn or declare HFR and 3D to a standard.

  • April 27, 2012, 4:40 p.m. CST

    @twelvemind - An explanation

    by denise quesnel

    If it's shot in 48fps, wouldn't it be slow-mo when projected at 24fps? Or, do they digitally manipulate the image to allow projection @ 24fps?

  • April 27, 2012, 11:06 p.m. CST

    Preferring 24 frames per second doesn't make someone a Luddite.

    by one9deuce

    And it isn't going away. Ever. It looks cinematic. I'll definitely watch THE HOBBITT in 48fps 3D because that's how Peter Jackson shot it and intends it to be seen. But that isn't going to be the new standard. Anyone comparing this to sound or color is ignorant. As pointed out above, we have been watching a higher frame rate for years and years, and it just doesn't look as cinematic as 24fps.

  • April 28, 2012, 1:29 a.m. CST

    If people thought it looked like TV, then it looked like fucking TV!

    by FleshMachine

    you argue with people opinion. clearly a lot of people thought the increased frame rate looked like TV. I've had that motion option activated on my TV, the one that adds some sort of 3:2 pull down and makes film look like TV. I hope to god that's not what Hobbit will look like.

  • April 28, 2012, 1:30 a.m. CST

    Hate to be a luddite but if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

    by FleshMachine

    we'll see i guess. but making thing more video-like doesn't seem great.

  • April 28, 2012, 1:31 a.m. CST

    Who wants FILM more VIDEO-like??

    by FleshMachine

    no one.

  • April 28, 2012, 5:40 a.m. CST

    Well Monty Christo, you're a lucky man!

    by D.Vader

    Two of my very good friends moved out to Austin almost two years ago. I'm insanely jealous. Never been there, but I've wanted to visit for years.

  • April 28, 2012, 12:26 p.m. CST

    If you can't immediately be absorbed by the image and not distracted

    by The_Genteel_Gentile

    then it doesn't work.

  • April 28, 2012, 12:27 p.m. CST

    If everything appears too sharp, like bad CG

    by The_Genteel_Gentile

    Then it doesn't work.

  • April 28, 2012, 12:27 p.m. CST

    If you can't immediately resonate with it in a montage presentation

    by The_Genteel_Gentile

    Then it doesn't work.

  • April 28, 2012, 12:28 p.m. CST

    "Perfect is the enemy of good"

    by The_Genteel_Gentile

  • April 28, 2012, 12:29 p.m. CST

    Hyper clarity removed atmosphere.

    by The_Genteel_Gentile

  • April 28, 2012, 12:32 p.m. CST

    Digital already mutes the eyes and makes skin tones appear plastic

    by The_Genteel_Gentile

    Now there going to be less shallow depth of field and no motin blur? - No thank you.

  • April 28, 2012, 12:32 p.m. CST


    by The_Genteel_Gentile

  • April 28, 2012, 12:33 p.m. CST


    by The_Genteel_Gentile

  • April 28, 2012, 12:33 p.m. CST


    by The_Genteel_Gentile

  • April 28, 2012, 12:33 p.m. CST


    by The_Genteel_Gentile

  • April 28, 2012, 12:35 p.m. CST

    Sorry Douglas Trumbull, this is theme park technology, not cinema!

    by The_Genteel_Gentile

  • April 28, 2012, 12:38 p.m. CST

    24fps 35mm anamorphic lensed film = CINEMATIC

    by The_Genteel_Gentile

    Stop tinkering with perfection! Why would a major production every willingly choose an inferior aesthetic?

  • April 28, 2012, 8:45 p.m. CST


    by Norman Colson

    okay I've always wondered how come whenever a motion picture footage is seen with overseas it has this weird motion blur effect like the quality of cameras is different, but whenever the same footage is over in america it looks normalized... WTF? what does it all mean? Also now that 48fps might become standard, with hi-def movies will we see better cgi because of it, because when im home watching blu-ray movies the cgi is always standing out, like damn i can tell what's actually fake and whatnot, isnt it the job of the special effects guys to make it look seamless, like it's part of reality instead of in the background on an actual green screen, why does it do that?

  • April 28, 2012, 10 p.m. CST

    another badly written article

    by james_cameron_raped_my_childhood

    AICN has gone downhill this year.

  • April 29, 2012, 3:01 a.m. CST

    @lensproject: Video Production

    by tailhook

    Indeed. It looks cheap, because the only people who have dealt with it are people involved in say the local news.. or soap operas. Nobody has seriously even tried taking big budget studio design to 60 fps or even tried adapting it for narrative filmmaking. Take a local newscast or soap opera and film it in 24 fps. You think its all of a sudden going to suddenly not look cheap? I do agree it will not become the standard overnight, but its coming and don't think there won't be directors that figure out new ways to take advantage of it to its fullest. But don't fret, the studios are going to hedge. So you have a 3D version at 48 and a 2D at 24. Don't like the 48, save yourself the money and see the 2D. You probably were going to anyways. At the moment, all this is is finding a way to differentiate the 3D from the 2D enough to further justify the upselling to consumers.

  • April 29, 2012, 3:26 a.m. CST

    How about just make better fucking movies.

    by Duck of Death

    If Hollywood spent half the energy and money it throws at technological gimmicks on better scripts and fostering talented filmmakers, maybe -- just maybe -- that would actually draw people back into theaters. Instead, it's all about coming up with innovative new forms of turd polish.

  • April 29, 2012, 4:47 a.m. CST

    I have an honest but stupid question -- What is a Hobbit?

    by bs9999

  • April 29, 2012, 11:27 a.m. CST

    Definitely keen to see what 48 FPS looks like.

    by MajorFrontbum

  • April 29, 2012, 1:47 p.m. CST


    by lensproject

    Actually yes, there are plenty of examples of shows using 24fps to not look cheap. That's what happened when DV cameras that shot 24fps came out. All of a sudden low-budget movies and TV shows looked less cheap. Now everyone is shooting 24fps when 7-8 years ago they didn't have that choice. Indie cinema today has the advent of 24fps cameras to thank for allowing their films to 'compete'.

  • April 29, 2012, 2:56 p.m. CST


    by NoahTall

    The studios obviously don't know what the people really want. Listen closely you idiots. The public does not want or need color in their movies. Black and white is the way movies were meant to be watched and the only way they should ever be watched. When you switch to color you lose all the glorious contrast that you get with black and white. Where are the sharp edged shadows?!?!? Where are the crisp clean facial tones?!?!?! Instead you get red shirts and blue pants. If I want to see red shirts and blue pant's I'll damn well look at them in the real world, not on film. Mark my words, if you start making movies in color then you will destroy the movie industry. Theaters will go the way of the dodo!!!

  • April 30, 2012, 4:32 a.m. CST


    by Chris Crocker

    First time I saw a standard def DVD image I was amazed. First time I saw a high def image I was amazed. First time I saw IMAX I was amazed. First time I saw 48fps I thought it looked like shit. Second time I saw it I thought it looked like cheap video. I don't feel like giving it a third time. It's a gimmick, just like 3D. Only thing that worries me is that just like allowing texting in theatre, the chains will use "upgrades" like this to go after a younger generation, most used to playing video games on PC's at 60fps. These might be the only idiots the look doesn't bother. If the industry would spend less energy and money on technology and gimmicks and put more into stories, taking chances, and fine crafting the filmmaking process, we'd be in better shape.

  • April 30, 2012, 10:03 a.m. CST

    Not Accurate

    by George Lukacs

    I dont think many people are going to share monty's opinion on this one. I attended the screening at cinemacon and every true lover of cinema will reject format outright. There is an obvious lost of atmosphere, a dramatic change in the lighting of scenes, and loss of depth of field. As for the animation, Ill remind everyone that the single greatest achievement in CGI was Jurrasic Park, one of the first, which used a combination of clever lighting and other sfx tricks to achieve realism.

  • April 30, 2012, 10:22 a.m. CST


    by Monty Cristo

    I'll skip addressing the fact you basically allege I'm not a "true lover of cinema". Something to note is that the lighting issue you mention is something that Jackson told everyone was still not finished. The lighting and color grading had not been completed on any of those shots. In short, the "look" of the whole thing hasn't been completed. The biggest disservice they did themselves was showing VERY unfinished content, which many in that auditorium, including you, took for the final product.

  • It certainly would have qualified as cool news.

  • April 30, 2012, 10:27 a.m. CST

    A few mentions of "I saw this and this appeared"

    by Ingeld

    is rather thin and weak. Certainly more could have been said about ten minutes of the film! I have seen one minute trailers analyzed and picked apart more on this site.

  • April 30, 2012, 10:44 a.m. CST

    That "BBC" look...

    by Fett8802

    I hate only three movies that I've seen. There are many I didn't care for, but only three I hate. One of them is Public Enemies. One of the primary reasons I hated it was because of the awful visuals. The entire film looked like an episode of Cops, or a crime re-enactment, or an episode of a BBC show. Which, all of that is fine on TV. However, on a movie screen, I simply couldn't get into the movie when it looked so cheaply made. If it does indeed carry the same type of feel, I will absolutely be making an effort to see it in 2D. I truly hope movies don't go down this path.

  • April 30, 2012, 11:20 a.m. CST

    Public Enemies had a lot more problems than the look

    by Logan_1973

    Character development, anyone?

  • April 30, 2012, 11:22 a.m. CST

    And i cant help to think if Tarantino were advocating 48fps

    by Logan_1973

    You guys would be crying genius.

  • April 30, 2012, 11:49 a.m. CST

    True lover of cinema

    by George Lukacs

    Your right, bad choice of words. I guess what I was trying to say was a lover of the look of cinema on the big screen. Look, no question it is a sharper image. I do not believe it is a window into reality. It looks nothing like my reality. I dont know maybe I have bad eyes or something. My reality does not look like a NBC Nightly News show in HD. Dont get me wrong, I am a fan of new technology. I am a tech guy by trade. I have also seen 70mm at 60 frames and it looks nothing like this. Just like crappy CGI we get these days just because it is new does not mean its good. P.S. I have been going to cinemacon/showest for 7 years now and you know and I know the post production is not going to have that big of impact on the look to change peoples opinion.

  • April 30, 2012, 2:04 p.m. CST


    by Monty Cristo

    More coverage is coming, but the brief snips at the end of the article are almost the extent of what was allowed by the press office.

  • April 30, 2012, 2:30 p.m. CST


    by Ingeld

    Thanks for the direct response. I really do not know what the rules of the venue was or that those in attendance are restricted from reporting on what they saw. It seems odd to me to have people view clips but then not allow them to report on what they saw. What was the point? Why would unbiased reporters actually agree to be gagged or in a sense be manipulated by the studio so as to be a mere extension of their PR department?

  • April 30, 2012, 4 p.m. CST

    'looked so cheaply made' -- there's the rub

    by bah

    I won't say it's the sole reason, but I think a *big* part of the reason many people hate this is that the look is something we're conditioned to think is cheap. When we see an old BBC production or home video, we know it was made cheaply, so we've come to associate the look with cheapness, even if the look itself isn't necessarily bad.

  • April 30, 2012, 5:54 p.m. CST

    re: bah

    by Winston Smith

    That's a bingo. Spot on, we've come to associate that look with cheapness, and it's hard to break a psychological feeling like that.

  • April 30, 2012, 5:55 p.m. CST


    by Winston Smith

    Also agree. The first time I saw a real IMAX image I was blown away, and I wish more theatres and movies were moving that route.

  • April 30, 2012, 5:59 p.m. CST

    As a whole...

    by Winston Smith

    ...can we please ALL AGREE that some changes are good and some are bad, and that some changes are accepted and some or not? For every argument of "people thought sound and color would be the end of cinema," there's a New Coke, or 3D via the 1950s that fizzled away, or the extremely negative reaction to handheld devices that only play movies (I remember people here using the same arguments that, well that's the future because back in the day they said nobody would like TV because it's too small). You can't argue that a change is either good or bad by looking at the past, because the past shows examples of both. In the end, it could go either way. We're kinda in the 1950s now where there's a lot of variety out there (IMAX, 3D, 48 fps, digital, film, 35mm, 65mm, etc.) as the industry tries to figure out what the new standards will be.

  • April 30, 2012, 6:04 p.m. CST


    by Winston Smith

    Is also proof that a "better" product doesn't always win. 70mm at 60fps is incredible, I've only seen it once but it looks more "real" than anything else. For big action epics, showscan could be game changing. As Trumbell said himself, why spend 300 mil on a film if not all that money is making it to the screen? Lawrence of Arabia on 65mm also looks better than almost anything else I've seen.

  • April 30, 2012, 8:57 p.m. CST

    48 fps = flourecent lighting

    by Bedhead7

    Does anyone prefer the look of florescent lighting to old school incandescent or halogen lights? Does anyone not prefer firelight to the harsh lighting of a 7-11 at night? 48 fps is that kind of change. It's a BIG change, it's not something subtle. It's not something that has degrees of good or bad. It's either good, or its bad. Digital vs Film has degrees of good and bad, it's something that can improve over time. 48fps looks like it does and will never look another way. HD, DVD and Bluray took whatever was good and just made it more good. 48fps does not do this. It looks like 48fps on vhs, dvd, bluray, imax, film, hd, sd, small screen, big screen, crt or lcd. It changes everything it touches. This will either be good or bad, there is no in between.

  • April 30, 2012, 10:57 p.m. CST

    People that know the least, seem to talk the most.

    by DackChaar

    I work in visual effects for a living. For people saying that the CG 'seams' blend much better in 48 fps, that's not true. It may have looked better, but that's simply due to the work of the VFX artists at Weta Digital, not due to these higher frame rates. The only thing 48 fps will achieve is more fluid motion, less motion blur, a crisper image (due to less motion blur), and an overall more realistic experience, not to mention the benefits to the 3D experience. Cameras with higher frame rates have been around for years. There are many RED cameras that can reach up to 120 fps and any decent camera out today will record up to 60 fps. So if you're willing to look around a bit, you can see what these higher frame rates will look like. We are just simply used to watching movies at 24fps, and people do not like change. I remember when I first started working with cameras when I was much younger. I didn't know the difference between 24p and 60p, so I naturally filmed at the default setting of 60p. After several weeks of becoming accustomed to the 60p look, I was disgusted by the look of 24p video. I felt like I was watching everything in slow motion. This is just an example as to how your mind becomes conditioned to different frame rates. There's a plethora of benefits to 48 fps over 24 fps, we just have to become accustomed to it (which will happen after about 15 minutes of watching the film, honestly). Higher frame rates ARE the future. So you better get used to the idea of it if you want to keep watching modern cinema. The human eye wants to see 3D images at high frame rates - in fact it is begging us to do so. This is how we see the real world. Film-makers, with the power of new technology, are just now finally able to give it to us. Plus, for the people complaining about 3D and 48 fps, it's not like you don't have an option, so why complain about the change?

  • May 1, 2012, 9:14 a.m. CST

    Do these same people have issues with computer animation?

    by riskebiz

    Animated films are animated at a higher frame rate per second.

  • May 1, 2012, 10:34 a.m. CST

    After the first bite of a shit sandwich...

    by Nerdgasm

    do you really need to take a second bite, or slowly eat the entire foot long over an extended period of time just to confirm that the first bite tasted like shit?

  • May 1, 2012, 11:36 a.m. CST

    So, not one mention, anywhere...

    by Josh

    ...that the reason the footage looks shitty is because it's shot and projected digitally? This isn't film being shot and projected at an increased rate, this is garbage being projected at double-garbage rate. 4k projection is at Atari 400 level, at best, yet it's being used by the corporations running the studios (who don't give a shit about you) to justify abandoning quality projection -- and they'll never have to go back if we keep applauding shit like 48fps. So, let's show some balls. Or at least not sit by and let the director of the 3rd best King Kong movie tell us we're seeing it wrong.

  • May 1, 2012, 12:55 p.m. CST


    by lensproject

    You're wrong.

  • May 1, 2012, 12:55 p.m. CST

    amen dekerivers

    by lensproject

  • May 3, 2012, 2:28 a.m. CST


    by Monty Cristo

    The press office required that everyone sign an embargo agreement where we could report on presentations, but not give blow-by-blow full reviews of things. There's a grey line between the two in some cases, where the studios showing these things are openly fine with things like describing tech demonstrations like I did here, or as I will soon for Dolby Atmos. The footage presentations are mostly compiled as sizzle reels for the exhibitors in attendance, and as such are not intended as representative of the marketing campaign or the final content. At the same time, there are things like the first half hour of BRAVE that sort of are, but sort of aren't substantive. There's lots of fluff at CinemaCon. So why cover this shit in the first place? To be honest, there are some things that are worth reporting on, and loads of stuff that made me and others snore (more on these million moments in my final wrap piece). There are some things that directly impact or are of interest to us, the audience, like 48fps, laser projection (astounding), new standards for Dolby surround sound, and so on, along with first sneak peeks at things that are far from finished (47 RONIN, OBLIVION, others). The short answer that could have avoided all of that is that when you get an advance look at things, you are given that access only if you hold up your end of some sort of embargo agreement. Sometimes the embargo is bullshit, sometimes it makes sense, other times it's a mix of the two. In the case of this HOBBIT footage, there really isn't a whole lot more detail beyond what I included in the original post that can't be drawn from knowledge of where those moments come in the book. The tiny bit of additional stuff will come in the wrap-up. I wanted this article to focus on the 48fps, which was the far bigger story.

  • May 3, 2012, 5 a.m. CST

    The magic 'film' veil is lifted.

    by Michael Dorsey

    The idea of more frames per second sounds more science than art. Impressionism is out the window by the sounds of this malarkey, but I'll hold my judgement until I see the film (are we still calling them 'films'?).

  • May 3, 2012, 8:41 a.m. CST

    re: montycristo

    by Ingeld

    Once again thanks for the response. I guess I just don't understand the biz. I will be honest, though, it seems the more that I read AICN the more it seems like an extension of the major studios' PR departments. You, however, have shown me that for this site to deliver "cool news" it has to play ball with producers, directors and the movie industry in order to get any kind of access to movie information before the movie is actually released. They have a product to sell. It just seems to me that many years ago this site was more in the business of providing leaked information that came in under the radar rather than spoon fed information such as clips, posters, or previews such as this. That being said, I totally understand and accept that huge impact this new film speed will have on the entire industry and have enjoyed the conversations here by people who know much more than I do. Nevertheless, there were ten minutes of footage shown! I have read on other sites --that provided apparently leaked information--some significant revelations that were found in those ten minutes. I respect you and this site for keeping to its agreement with the press office. Still, the other sites had some really cool news.

  • May 3, 2012, 10:05 a.m. CST

    re: Animated films are animated at a higher frame rate per second.

    by Winston Smith

    Not true, in THEATERS, everything is shown at 24 frames per second. You want to see something different, you gotta check video/internet, and blu-rays are usually 24 as well. Also, 48 fps is a bigger deal because of 3D, and 3D in 24 fps does have a strobing effect it doesn't have in 2D. As an editor, though, I'll admit though you can get used to 60p, you can get used to 24p again afterwards. The brain adjusts up and down. At least I've found. The way a film is shot has a big effect on how it comes across as well.

  • May 3, 2012, 4:36 p.m. CST

    I think people are angry about this because...

    by Jared Bond

    ...they want this to be a classic film, not a technological gimmick. But truth be told, not a lot of mainstream people are interested in The Hobbit, or returning to Middle Earth when nothing as epic as destroying the ring is going on (which took way too long in the main trilogy as it is). PJ was reluctant to do this movie, probably because he knew it would relatively flop. The 48fps prospect is probably what changed his mind (kind of like how Burton didn't want to do Alice in Wonderland until he considered 3D), because people will go to see something new. The hype for most people is not going to be "return to Middle Earth!", but "see the first 48fps movie!". The fans will have to deal with it, because bottom line, movies have to make money. And who knows, maybe it will be the future of movie making. I'd have to see it to be sure, but right now I'd bet on this over 3D. I think it might signify a change in the actual content of movies, because what passes as believable in 24fps might not fly in 48fps. (By the way, that's 200% more, not 150%...) Advances in technology has always been the driver for and the main attraction of movies.

  • May 4, 2012, 12:38 p.m. CST


    by Monty Cristo

    We weren't spoon-fed this report. I was there and saw the footage presentation. We still do that sort of reporting (leaks and so one), but when we make an agreement like this up front, we don't have much of a choice. It's also much harder to get the quantity of leaks we got in the old days because the studios have gotten wise and make it a lot harder to do that. When the site started, Harry had the benefit of not being on their radar. We absolutely don't cater to the studios as an extension of PR departments. There are events that we'll partner on and promote for movies that Harry wants to push because he likes them, but that's the only collaboration we engage in. Look at the posting of the GRAVITY work-in-progress screening today: WB didn't even show footage from it at CinemaCon, so they certainly don't want word about it filtering out just yet. We run those sorts of reports when we can get them, but it's just a testament to how the online world has evolved that they're much harder to come by these days.

  • May 4, 2012, 1:40 p.m. CST

    re: montycristo

    by Ingeld

    I accept your explanation. It is well reasoned and makes sense. I imagine the relationship this site has with the studios amounts to a thin line that has to be walked. It needs to be a kind of platonic friendship--you talk and even pal around on occasion--but just don't get into bed with them. Thanks.