Dec. 14, 2012, 7:30 p.m. CST
That's what I'm thinking too: We'll have to get used to the format to appreciate it.
Dec. 14, 2012, 7:31 p.m. CST
up what film is today. Some of those panning shots are laughably stuttering. Bring on 48 fps!!!!
Dec. 14, 2012, 7:32 p.m. CST
by paul connors
and it sucks
Dec. 14, 2012, 7:32 p.m. CST
Dec. 14, 2012, 7:34 p.m. CST
Dec. 14, 2012, 7:35 p.m. CST
Dec. 14, 2012, 7:41 p.m. CST
Dec. 14, 2012, 7:45 p.m. CST
And HFR doesn't. I don't want or need movies to look more "real", any more than I want or need to replace paintings with photographs. HFR makes movies look like a live video feed of a dress rehearsal, or a public television broadcast of a theatrical stage performance. Everything looks stagy and small, and it's brutally unforgiving - sets look like sets, make-up looks like make-up, costumes look like costumes. By making everything look more "real", movies actually end up looking more fake - because movies _aren't_ real.
Dec. 14, 2012, 7:46 p.m. CST
Saw it last night in IMAX, and this is what I sent to a local theater owner in regards: (brand new theater, too) Last night at the Hobbit midnight IMAX HFR premiere, something felt amiss. Being a technology buff and having a TV that emulates smooth motion / 48fps, I figured I would be one of the audience members who sat there and patiently said "Ok, this works PERFECTLY!" but there was something crazy going on last night that I'm not sure if it worked perfectly, if it was working as intended, or if something was mis-calibrated. There were scenes that worked, like the early shots of Bilbo sitting there and we're close on his face as he begins to narrate the story. Then there were scenes that followed that also worked, like when they're looking at the mountain before the dragon attacked. But as soon as there was any sort of quick movement: characters running towards the screen, hands waving, catching, throwing, wagging, etc...there was a horrible ghosted and choppy effect. It was jarring and startling and the complete opposite of what I had been expecting with 48fps HFR. Even the simple cuts between scenes had an odd "flash of white/brightness" that lasted only a split second. It felt like someone waved a white light across my vision each time there was a transition. I sat there trying to figure it out, were the cameras/projectors misaligned? Maybe they were reversed left/right to what they should've been? Or was I just disoriented from the FPS? I truly don't know. The 3D in the previews was stellar, but as soon as the Hobbit started, it felt oddly wavy/warpy and lacked the depth of the films I've seen prior. Characters were running at me, and their legs weren't a blur of smooth movement, they were jumping frames of here and there, with my eyes unable to fix on what was going on. :-\
Dec. 14, 2012, 7:51 p.m. CST
So much of the work that is put into sets, costumes, and VFX is lost when shot at 24 fps because of terrible strobing and motion blur. I quickly got used to the 48 fps of The Hobbit, and now I simply can't imagine a huge fantasy blockbuster *not* being shot in HFR. It's simply beautiful and transporting, like you're looking into another world. Indeed my brain has been programmed to think film looks a "certain way" and that smoother motion = low production values, but after 15 minutes or so I was starting to reprogram myself: indeed, The Hobbit is gorgeous to look at and the opposite of cheap.
Dec. 14, 2012, 7:55 p.m. CST
After experiencing it, I cannot believe that anyone would have anything to say about the format. It totally destroys everything that makes a film worthwhile, viewing-wise. Granted, it doesn't help to see a film in 3D, which is itself one of the worst trends in movies, but even on it's own, 48fps completely takes you out of the movie. This is not what a movie should be doing. For people that are sick of hearing the talk about 48fps and want to just talk about the movie (Though in this case, even that isn't a good idea, as the movie is a failure on it's own), you're right. And right there is the problem. When you have people debating the technical making of the film more than the film, you have a big problem. It means you chose the wrong medium to tell the film in, and people aren't buying into it. The more accurate prediction: In 5 years, we will have seen 2 more attempts at 48fps (or higher, thanks to Cameron) from things that aren't IMAX documentaries, both will be trashed by people and the format dies away. Now, that is a world we can all agree will be better for everyone.
Dec. 14, 2012, 7:57 p.m. CST
Film should look like film. It's the old cgi vs old optical fx/matte paintings. Old star wars vs New Star Wars. More technical wizardry doesn't make for a better film. And if you still think I might be wrong, which I'm not, compare any of the new star trek shit to the original tos... even people's beloved TNG. I try to see what's so great about tng, but in the end I'm too busy sleeping to care. Tos though, pure classic...
Dec. 14, 2012, 8 p.m. CST
Go watch AOTC when the ships enter Coruscant. Lucas attempted to slowly pan the camera (yes, there are "cameras" in compltely CG shots, smartass) and it's choppy as HELL. It's horrible. This is why old school video games had to run at 60 fps. You just can't slowly scroll a screen and expect it to be smooth at 24 fps. It looks horrible. I've made retro games, so I know how important 60 fps was/is. You can do 30 fps in FPS, TPS, racing games, but remember, the camera doesn't pan left/right in those. Even when you look left and right, it's different, because it's not an entirely different section you're looking at. The camera is not flat, even in a 3D space, it's still a bit rounded, so there's a wrap-around effect so it works. 48 fps is long overdue.
Dec. 14, 2012, 8:03 p.m. CST
Dec. 14, 2012, 8:10 p.m. CST
The big hangup here is that people like to hold vintage cinema as the superior "look", even when it's been overtaken in quality by new technology. That's why we're always hearing that a movie is only "film-like" if it's crawling in grain. If it's smooth and highly defined, then it's perceived as "video-like", even when modern video is now superior. So here we are with HFR, and it's the same perception all over again because people are used to jerky and fuzzy as their benchmark for film. But you'll get used to it. It's better.
Dec. 14, 2012, 8:11 p.m. CST
And that's why it won't get anywhere beyond being an occasional plaything for a handful of directors like Jackson and Cameron who have enough clout to get studios to indulge them on it. It isn't a matter of audiences "getting used to" the look of videotape. We ARE used to that; it's been with us for over five decades. It's just that we recognize it as something visually inferior to the look of a movie, and good luck turning that perception around. Ary says that 48 FPS improves the experience of viewing 3D, which may be the case, but he also admits that it kind of sucks otherwise and that audiences may need to "rethink the visual semantics of their entertainment" in order to enjoy it. Audiences would indeed need to do that, because otherwise they'd be wondering why more and more big-budget theatrical releases were looking like network sitcoms. But that aside, the real reason HFR will not gain widespread adoption is because of the holes it would blow in the post-prod budgets of every movie made. I work in VFX and it is not uncommon to deal with shots in which painting/compositing work has to be done on EVERY frame; double the number of frames that have to be worked on and you're talking a massive increase in the costs and man-hours required to finish a movie, without an audience hook like 3D to justify it. Studios are not going to go for that. Avatar did not, in fact, change the way we watch movies since only a very small percentage of movies each year are made in or converted to 3D, and even that isn't likely to last much longer. HFR will be no different.
Dec. 14, 2012, 8:16 p.m. CST
Dec. 14, 2012, 8:19 p.m. CST
I just have no idea if the IMAX HFR I attended was calibrated correctly, hence my post. I love the idea of the technology. But if what I got was standard, and there are dwarves running at the screen and basically being distorted and wavy, then I'm not going to see another HFR any time soon. Truly baffled at the experience. Frodo and Bilbo standing around Hobbiton was gorgeous, but didn't appear to have depth. Just amazing clarity. Once they started moving, things got funky and I'm afraid that most people sat through it because they had no idea what to expect.
Dec. 14, 2012, 8:27 p.m. CST
I'm being honest when I say I couldn't quite adjust to the faster frame rate. I kept trying to focus my eyes and ignore the abnormal speed at which characters would move in close ups. Wide shots were purty though.
Dec. 14, 2012, 8:30 p.m. CST
Dec. 14, 2012, 8:30 p.m. CST
So I don't know.. Did we like widescreen back in the 50's?
Dec. 14, 2012, 8:34 p.m. CST
what gives a film viewer a sense of remove is the diffusion and slight blur created by the 24FPS rate which we've always known ... it switches the mind into a different mode (there is science on this - the flight-or-fight response is turned off, unlike with 48FPS and higher where it is left on) ... the mind can drift into the surreal more easily, become more contemplative, more receptive to art and the strange in an intellectual way ... 48FPS switches the mind to a mostly visceral state and changes the viewing experience within your mind ... it is fine for gaming and certain types of films or certain sections within films, but generally speaking it is bad for film and should be ditched before it catches on ... just because technology can do something faster or with more efficiency does not mean it has to happen
Dec. 14, 2012, 8:34 p.m. CST
Dec. 14, 2012, 8:35 p.m. CST
by Stereotypical Evil Archer
It is an artistic choice that looks silly and fake, but it keeps the action fast paced. It's the most noticeable on the wide tracking shots that take place in the dark or underground.
Dec. 14, 2012, 8:36 p.m. CST
... whole different movie
Dec. 14, 2012, 8:45 p.m. CST
by Stereotypical Evil Archer
Dec. 14, 2012, 8:46 p.m. CST
by Brian Cullen
Didn't seem different, don't know if it was calibrated correctley, but I loved the film so I couldn't give a shit. Wouldn't bother with the 3D either, save yourself a few bob.
Dec. 14, 2012, 8:49 p.m. CST
The only argument seems to be that panning looks better at 48. LMAO. It's a solution looking for a problem. I'm watching my Blu Ray of Fellowship right now after seeing the Hobbit today in HFR and one looks like a painting while the other looks like a Video Game cinematic. Guess which one is which? The Hobbit is more akin to the Star Wars prequels than it is to LOTR. It's bad enough that PJ used the plastic looking RED as opposed to ARRI Alexa but the 48 FPS makes it look a behind the scenes doc. Horrible.
Dec. 14, 2012, 8:50 p.m. CST
Dec. 14, 2012, 8:51 p.m. CST
by Stereotypical Evil Archer
Fake IMAX? Yeah, they can do 48fps in fake IMAX. But why pay IMAX prices for a fake IMAX presentation? Suckas.
Dec. 14, 2012, 8:51 p.m. CST
24 allows the brain to fill in the gaps and be more engaged in an active way. 48 (and higher) makes the viewing experience passive.
Dec. 14, 2012, 8:51 p.m. CST
Dec. 14, 2012, 8:53 p.m. CST
Dec. 14, 2012, 8:55 p.m. CST
It's called their GTHD machine, but it never caught on. Probably for a reason...
Dec. 14, 2012, 8:57 p.m. CST
Dec. 14, 2012, 8:58 p.m. CST
by Stereotypical Evil Archer
Dec. 14, 2012, 9 p.m. CST
Dec. 14, 2012, 9 p.m. CST
Dec. 14, 2012, 9 p.m. CST
Dec. 14, 2012, 9:03 p.m. CST
When they move like the ghost in Stir of Echoes?
Dec. 14, 2012, 9:04 p.m. CST
Dec. 14, 2012, 9:05 p.m. CST
for that extra push over the cliff.
Dec. 14, 2012, 9:08 p.m. CST
Why are people saying that we'll get used to HFR video? As you pointed out, we ARE used to it. Higher frame rate video has been used for a LONG time on television. Mazzer, you're an idiot. Film is fuzzy? You sound really ignorant. 24 frames per second film just looks perfect for cinema. It gives it the surreal quality that's perfect for being transported into a story. It's like how an illustrated poster looks so much more interesting than just a photograph on a poster.
Dec. 14, 2012, 9:18 p.m. CST
Dec. 14, 2012, 9:19 p.m. CST
Dec. 14, 2012, 9:20 p.m. CST
We're averse to it not because it looks bad, but because bad forms of entertainment have looked like this in the past.
Dec. 14, 2012, 9:24 p.m. CST
I am having a hard time wrapping my head around this concept. I understand that it will take some getting used to and makes things look more like they actually are. I am confused about the process. I am guessing it is filmed with a special camera. Is projected on a special projector? Will you be able to watch a blue ray of the movie in 48fps? Or does a TV not have the ability to project/display a t 48fps? I am guessing there is no way to display this in a clip or a visual example.
Dec. 14, 2012, 9:33 p.m. CST
Then it's already failed.
Dec. 14, 2012, 10:08 p.m. CST
"Real" isn't always better. Especially when the subject is inherently fake, like The Hobbit. HFR, like 3D, is just a gimmick to get people to go to theaters and shill out as much money as possible. Born out of a "what can we provide in theaters than bootleggers can't reproduce?" mindset. The goal isn't a better experience for audiences, it's more profit. HFR for documentaries? Great! HFR for 3D? I'll never pay to see a movie in 3D so I couldn't care less! HFR as the future of ALL cinema? Fuck off.
Dec. 14, 2012, 10:08 p.m. CST
that it really looked amazing at 48 fps in 3D. The only negative to me seemed to be that some of those shots where characters walk into the foreground in a still environment that background looked almost like a really high-rez postcard, and it kind of felt more like an artistic design decision to set a tone for this fantasy flick by Jackson. The amount of detail that you can take in during the shots where everything is filling the screen and the mood that the environments offer in 48 felt like it fit The Hobbit. Might be only for certain movies tho.
Dec. 14, 2012, 10:17 p.m. CST
... when watching Mr. Ary's critique on The Hobbit's 48fps presentation. He kept saying that his brain kept telling him that certain sequences reminded him of video game clarity and/or reality TV. As I just posted in another thread here, I loved the film seeing it this morning, and took back all the complaints I made last night about it being presented in 3D 48fps. But I don't play video games at all, and I watch very little reality tv. (or any TV) And the Hobbit's 3D HD look and feel did not bother me at all. My 'brain' did not reject the aesthetic feel of the new presentation. But what about folks who play alot of video games? Could they be associating the look of the Hobbit with the look of the HD in a video game, and therefore are emotionally rejecting the epic 'grandness' feel of the movie? Just a thought ...
Dec. 14, 2012, 10:46 p.m. CST
I posted this earlier in Harry's Hobbit write up, but seems more appropriate here. I rolled the dice and went whole hog HFR 48 FPS 3D for the midnight screening last night with a group of 8 friends. I never fully adjusted to the clarity, the quirky sped up motions, or the real/fake look of the sets, but a number of my friends said they didn't notice after the story left The Shire. Turns out that those of us that wear corrective lenses never adjusted, and those that have near perfect vision adjusted and loved it (I usually wear glasses, but put in contacts to allow for the 3d glasses). I know this is an extremely small focus group, but I'm curious to see if there are some people that simply won't be able to enjoy this technology due to vision problems. For the record- I don't watch reality TV or play video games.
Dec. 14, 2012, 10:53 p.m. CST
I might as well see the one time in 48FPS, because with these reviews I won't bee seeing it twice to make a comparison.
Dec. 14, 2012, 11:04 p.m. CST
by Buck Turgidson
Ultimately audience demand will dictate whether Pj's techno stunt will succeed or fail.
Dec. 14, 2012, 11:08 p.m. CST
Marge Simpson said that. Some of you guys sound just like her.
Dec. 14, 2012, 11:09 p.m. CST
by That Guy
And the review didn't make the movie sound all that great to begin with.
Dec. 14, 2012, 11:12 p.m. CST
see 2001 in CinemaScope" Where and when? It played in Cinerama and with noticeable seams on the screen. It sucked.
Dec. 14, 2012, 11:44 p.m. CST
This is why I only comment when I have to. You are promoting a video quality bullshit crap to actual 24 frames, Film is already lost. I know about evolution in digital technology, but fuck you for kissing, and licking its ass. Peter Jackson's only good film was 'The Frighteners' 48 FPS is soap opera, T.V. quality. Film is being downgraded by higher numbers.
Dec. 14, 2012, 11:49 p.m. CST
Dec. 14, 2012, 11:53 p.m. CST
by Talkbacker with no name
and your voice is silky smooth like silk.
Dec. 14, 2012, 11:55 p.m. CST
All the other Hobbit criticism I heard was a lie, so why not that as well?
Dec. 14, 2012, 11:57 p.m. CST
Everything looking like cosplay and so on. Now hfr will make it even more so?
Dec. 15, 2012, midnight CST
...that different people are genetically wired to have a different experience with 48fps vs 24fps? One of my friends is constantly bothered by what to him is perceivable flicker at the cinema. It seems that his eyes process data at a higher rate than mine. To me, all film projected at 24fps is smooth. To him, it is not.
Dec. 15, 2012, 12:02 a.m. CST
The Hobbit is now sitting not that far above The Phantom Menace. It is fairly clear that, 48fps issues aside, the film is simply too long and bloated. It sounds like he's released the extended edition as the theatrical cut.
Dec. 15, 2012, 12:20 a.m. CST
Sooner or later people will realize all of these things are a joke and go back to B&W silent flicker shows like it was meant to be. Or my name isn't Sir Bigus Dickus.
Dec. 15, 2012, 12:35 a.m. CST
Bush league, pysch out stuff.
Dec. 15, 2012, 12:36 a.m. CST
Dec. 15, 2012, 12:37 a.m. CST
by Talkbacker with no name
It's not too long and bloated. Critics have decided it's time to take Peter Jackson and the middle-earth universe down a notch or two. It's sad really, because it's a fantastic film on a stunning new format. But hey, why don't you go and watch and judge for yourself instead of dicking around on sites that give percentages to works of art?
Dec. 15, 2012, 12:39 a.m. CST
Everything else was paced very nicely, imo.
Dec. 15, 2012, 12:41 a.m. CST
by Talkbacker with no name
people have a different experience with 48fps and 24fps. It's not the eyes though, it's the brain process.
Dec. 15, 2012, 12:42 a.m. CST
Dec. 15, 2012, 12:46 a.m. CST
I'm guessing that there will be a decent portion of Talkbackers who, in about 20 or 30 years will still be complaining about 48 fps. That's cool, to each their own. That said, I'm fairly confident that 48 fps will come into its own with a new generation of viewers. I think the biggest adoption will be from a younger generation of viewers. Adoption of new technology isn't necessarily going to be smooth. There's a learning curve and some directors will do some stupid things with the technology. Technology behind special effects (whether practical or CG) will also need to get better to accommodate the better visuals. Camera techniques, framing, etc. will also need to follow suit. Again, we're not talking overnight changes, but things that will happen gradually. And for all those cranky talkbackers who will still hate 48 fps, I'm sure they can CGI in some lens flares to alleviate your pain.
Dec. 15, 2012, 12:47 a.m. CST
by Talkbacker with no name
Clash of the Titans 3 will look like total shit at 48fps, I'll bet my house on it.
Dec. 15, 2012, 12:57 a.m. CST
Really? Um...the fuck?
Dec. 15, 2012, 1:25 a.m. CST
If you want a 3-D CG blockbuster with surgical-level detail, sports, CG animation, nature, science or porn for a generation raised by HFR videogames...HFR is fine.
Dec. 15, 2012, 1:41 a.m. CST
then we shouldn’t even be able to register a difference between 25 fps and 48fps, right? We would just not perceive the extra frames it seems like. Just wondering.
Dec. 15, 2012, 1:59 a.m. CST
Seems like PJ made The Hobbitt like he made LOTR, but just shot it using 48 fps - that may be the problem. This is the first CD my friends, so don't be too hard on him. Things will get better with time as people learn how to better work the technology.
Dec. 15, 2012, 2:10 a.m. CST
Dec. 15, 2012, 2:12 a.m. CST
Dec. 15, 2012, 2:20 a.m. CST
bitching about the first holodeck.
Dec. 15, 2012, 2:25 a.m. CST
The human eye is not a camera with film or a digital sensor; the eye/brain perceives afterimages, motion and fleeting images like flicker in different ways. This is why if you wave your hand quickly in front of your eyes you see blur. Or why hummingbird wings or helicopter blades appear blurry and we don't perceive the wings or the individual rotors with our vision. Or why cars with strong headlights at night leave brief streaks in your eyes. With 1/25th sec., 24FPS was chosen as a *golden* threshold; conserving film stock while running at the minimum of persistence of vision. With film projection, there is an amount of time the projector shutter is passing in front of the film as it advances, leaving a gap, or what we perceive as flicker. With digital projection, there is more of a static hold of each frame as they advance. Since 48FPS is passing more information in front of the eye, it appears smoother, but to create an equally-perceivable (1/25 sec) afterimage, you would basically have to display two frames at 48FPS instead of one at 24FPS. The most basic explanation is that your eye isn't recognizing more distinct frames per second, but that the 1/24 gaps or holds between each movie frame have vanished, being supplanted by additional visual information. As frame rates increase, the illusion of seamless motion increases, because there are less gaps and holds in the presentation of visual information to the viewer. 48-60FPS DOES record motion blur, just less than lower frame rates. It is not as if your eye/brain is *creating* blur. I could go on for hours, so check this.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_of_vision ...which goes into flicker, duration, film and digital projectors, computer monitors, etc.
Dec. 15, 2012, 2:40 a.m. CST
definitely miss out if you see this in 2D. You can get that shit at home. Venture the fuck out.
Dec. 15, 2012, 2:41 a.m. CST
Just want to point out that the technology has existed for 50+ years to shoot and project CELLULOID FILM at 48fps+. Nobody ever complained about Maxi-vision 48 looking like a TV broadcast or having strange lateral movement issues. Watching Maxi-vision 48 has been described as looking through an open picture window into another world. Jackson should have shot on film at 48fps, and then adapted it to digital projection and these problems wouldn't have occurred.
Dec. 15, 2012, 2:45 a.m. CST
It didn't last due to the strain of large-format IMAX film being hauled through the projector at twice its normal speed.
Dec. 15, 2012, 2:57 a.m. CST
God, you people with your bitching and whining. You sound like my Grandparents complaining about how the internet and cell phones have ruined the world. This is the same mindset that fought against movies having sound. That found against widescreen because those annoying black bars take up half the screen! This is just the next evolution for movies. If that doesn't fit into your naive and narrow idea of what a movie "should" look like it, I guess that sucks for you. Sorry you can't accept change. We'll miss you guys while the rest of us live in the future.
Dec. 15, 2012, 3 a.m. CST
The ones complaining about the *talkies* were silent screen actors with *not so hot* vocal talent!
Dec. 15, 2012, 3:02 a.m. CST
Dec. 15, 2012, 3:18 a.m. CST
by Talkbacker with no name
Shooting 24fps on film for 266 days is an insane amount of film stock, money and hassle (as shown in one of The Lord of the Rings production diaries). Now double that for 48fps film stock and you have your answer of why it wasn't done that way. It would have been impractical, too costly and foolish.
Dec. 15, 2012, 3:30 a.m. CST
I'm all for new tech. But if it looks like shit, it IS shit.
Dec. 15, 2012, 3:35 a.m. CST
...and robogeek has already won the talkback.
Dec. 15, 2012, 3:49 a.m. CST
I resisted blu-ray for the longest time and you know why? Because whenever I went to a store to look at a player and have the tech-twat du jour demonstrate the format's capabilities, he would invariably show me something in that hideous tru-motion mode. My complaints about how ghastly it looked and how jarring it was to a movie fan were met with the argument "what do you mean? Look how smoothly everything moves. This is cutting edge technology." Things weren't improved by the fact that almost everyone I knew who had a BR player had drunk the kool-aid and watched movies the same way at home. It wasn't until a friend showed me that you actually didn't have to watch movies that way that I finally understood. I think the example I mentioned is the problem here. Some people are so fixated on cutting edge technology that they don't stop to see what the end viewing result actually looks like. In the past few days, a number of my friends have seen The Hobbit in 48fps and reactions are mixed. The ones who hated it (the format, not the film, which they all adored) are the movie geeks. The ones who loved it are the same ones who don't have a problem with tru-motion home viewing. I haven't seen it for myself yet, but based on what I do know and the opinions of people around me I'll be avoiding 48fps like the plague, at least until I don't have a choice any more.
Dec. 15, 2012, 3:57 a.m. CST
Almost a year and a half ago, when I was predicting 48FPS (or higher) would NOT be the bees knees for *cinematic* fare, I also went out on a limb to predict that VARIABLE FRAME RATE could actually be a useful filmmaking tool. Examples: AVATAR: 60FPS for *link* scenes, 24FPS for *reality*, not unlike the B&W/color divisions in THE WIZARD OF OZ SPELLBOUND: Hitchcock wanted the Dali-inspired dream sequence to be more sharp than the rest of the film, and Hitch wanted the dream sequence be filmed with low apertures in daylight. HFR would have been an option, if it existed. TRON:LEGACY: HFR for computer world scenes, 24FPS for real world scenes. In something like THE HOBBIT, you could have Smaug's fire composited to exploit 48FPS, while the rest of the frame composited back to 24FPS, enhance the fire's intensity. You get it. Even action movies could ramp-up the frame rate for car chases or other action where blur impairs overall detail. The complaints with THE HOBBIT are that it looks like video running at 2X speed, and audiences expect *cinema* to look bigger than life and *theatrical*, not like HD TELEVISION BLOWN UP HUGE. The problem is that Peter Jackson went full-monty with THE HOBBIT, showing a disregard for overall visual *cinematic* taste. Yes, certain HOBBIT scenes could have had the 48FPS footage inexpensively *printed back* to a 24/FPS look, while the whole movie ran at 48FPS to save the *HRF effect* for scenes of natural landscapes, fast action, *magical effects*, etc. When I was bitching about this ages ago here, talkbackers jumped on me with, *I trust Peter Jackson, not a fanboy* catcalls. Well, I'll say it again: for *cinema*, HFR will eventually become another tool in the box, not a gimmick. Which is why people are bitching about this *looks like a video game* gimmick for THE HOBBIT. Warner was smart to book THE HOBBIT in multiplexes offering three viewing options, I'll say that.
Dec. 15, 2012, 4:22 a.m. CST
That always reminds me of the people who want VHS tapes back, because DVDs and Blu Rays look too sharp.
Dec. 15, 2012, 4:35 a.m. CST
she will be able to pick out a movie made before she was 5 because of the way it looks
Dec. 15, 2012, 4:49 a.m. CST
I'm all for increased clarity, but HFR also, unfortunately, removes everything "cinematic" from the moving image. All of us old fogeys (or proper movie buffs) might've embraced it IF we we lived in a parallel universe where "video" didn't already exist--and we hadn't been living with the (correct) perception that video is and always will be inferior to film ...when it comes to movies. There's a reason that movies shot digitally are still photographed and processed to look like film--because some traditions are worth keeping. "The Hobbit" looks like video, simple as that. My brain rejects it as an inferior image. Why would anyone, including Jackson, WANT it to look like video? It smooths out stuttering and motion blur during action/effects sequences? Really? Was that really such a big deal? I never even noticed. And is solving that completely unimportant problem really worth sacrificing the integrity of your entire movie for? Yeah, I'm nearly 40 years old. But, I've always embraced advancements in the world of film (well, only a casual hug for 3D, maybe). But this? This is all wrong. I hated almost all 169 minutes of my experience watching this movie the first time. Completely distracted. Even those who've liked HFR admit they had to "get used to it", to work at it. Is that really what you want your audience doing during your movie, having to adjust to the way it looks? I love movies more than just about anything, but if this catches on, I guess I'm done.
Dec. 15, 2012, 5:05 a.m. CST
Dec. 15, 2012, 5:28 a.m. CST
They reflected the pros as well as he cons of the format. To me this is being honest. Saying it is shit without any objectivity to look at the positives to me is dishonest. A lot like a talk back tends to go and a lot like most poor reviews.
Dec. 15, 2012, 6:14 a.m. CST
Has anyone tested this? Did PJ?
Dec. 15, 2012, 6:41 a.m. CST
I'm a gamer so high framerates have always been important to me. I know it's slightly different with film as motion blur from the shutter exposure time helps to smooth frame transitions, but anything with extra frames is good in my book. If anything I'd like to see Cameron's 60fps brought to the silver screen. I always turn on the motion smoothing on my projector, it just gives everything an extra layer of smoothness. Avengers in 3D with motion smoothing was amazing. Still, I totally get why people aren't in love with 48fps, it is a big change and a significant departure of one of the features that define cinema.
Dec. 15, 2012, 7:43 a.m. CST
...seems to be the only complaint anybody can make about 48 fps. I imagine some people made similar complaints about talkies and colour film back in the day.
Dec. 15, 2012, 8:05 a.m. CST
by Hockey Mask
Dec. 15, 2012, 8:25 a.m. CST
...I can still remember store employees trying to convince me a few years ago while I was in the market for my first HD television that LCD TVs looked better than plasmas, even though all evidence pointing to the contrary was right there in front of me. When I would indicate the awful colors, the flat, "smeared" look of the picture and the ghosting of moving objects, they would just look at me and say that LCD was the superior tech and that plasmas were on the way out. Shockingly, loads of people swallowed that shit and bought tons of terrible TVs. And here we are, years later and plasmas are better and more popular than ever. Why? Because they're the best at reproducing that "filmic" look that everyone wants. The whole "shiny new! me want!" mentality is utterly baffling and people not even trusting their own eyes is faintly disturbing. By all accounts, 48fps is fake-looking, but fake-looking in all the wrong ways.
Dec. 15, 2012, 8:39 a.m. CST
48fps is just another reason to jack up ticket prices. Otherwise, it's simply a novelty at this point. Until it gains more widespread acceptance, we can't really look at it as "the wave of the future."
Dec. 15, 2012, 8:48 a.m. CST
by couresits kahn
2001 never showed in three strip Cinerama. It was shot on 65mm negative and projected in 70mm (5mm for soundtrack). Three strip was dead long before 2001 was made. See 2001 or Lawrence of Arabia in 70mm and you see a beautiful, virtually grain-free image. We finally have a digital system that approaches the clarity and immersiveness of 70mm and everyone bitches about it.
Dec. 15, 2012, 9:02 a.m. CST
by Talkbacker with no name
But still you sit here talking like you know everything. Ha silly bastards.
Dec. 15, 2012, 9:53 a.m. CST
...have to come from people that feel that Impressionist paintings are too fuzzy. Just because to many of us it looks like a BBC production shot on Video doesn't mean we're against new tech. It means we have taste. If you're the kind of person who'll watch Jaws on your big LED screen with 120or 240HZ active then you probably liked this crud. 48 has it's place if well done just like 3D. The original screenings of Brainstorm had segments shot and projected at 48 in order to create the illusion of hyper reality. It's great tech in small doses. The problems with the Hobbit go beyond 48...the lighting and cinematography was crap and the story is bloated to all hell but making the choice to shoot it at 48 is the nail in the coffin. I watched my Blu's of LOTRO after my screening last night just to compare. I suggest everyone esle does the same. It's shocking.
Dec. 15, 2012, 9:56 a.m. CST
I've read some reviews by "real" critics who suggest this...fucking idiots. And btw, everything you've ever seen in a movie in slow motion is shot with extremely high frame rate and then downsampled. So this could be done in the future somewhat if certain scenes don't look great in 48 FPS. I am all for this improved technology though and they just need to tweak the process.
Dec. 15, 2012, 9:57 a.m. CST
so many people talking out of their ass on this one.
Dec. 15, 2012, 10:07 a.m. CST
The 48fps haters are a generation that will die away. The next generation of movie goers will grow up with this look and will laugh about the grumpy old men who prefer 24fps. Its really like vinyl vs. CD, color vs b/w, hell talkies vs silent movies. One day all 24fps films will look dated like black and white. Sure, with nostalgic qualities, but dated. I'm less sure of the future of 3D, though.
Dec. 15, 2012, 10:09 a.m. CST
...but seeing the 24fps version first. I might go back for a second viewing just to see what all the 48fps hubbub is about, but I was glad I took the traditional route for my first viewing. Loved it.
Dec. 15, 2012, 10:10 a.m. CST
Dec. 15, 2012, 10:11 a.m. CST
Way to invalidate your own point, slick. To a 3D-is-the-future guy, you're just as much of a dinosaur as the 48fps skeptics.
Dec. 15, 2012, 10:13 a.m. CST
...vinyl on a high-end player vs CD? Vinyl, easy.
Dec. 15, 2012, 10:13 a.m. CST
So I know more than you. 48 fps is shit. The end.
Dec. 15, 2012, 10:20 a.m. CST
...B&W King Kong vs colorized King Kong? B&W, obviously. Argento's original mono soundtrack for Suspiria vs the Anchor Bay remixed 5.1 version? Fuck yeah, mono. Everything that's new isn't better by default.
Dec. 15, 2012, 10:21 a.m. CST
After seeing the 24fps version to compare it to. And I loved it. So did the people I was with. I think you guys are over thinking this. 20 years from now you're going to sound like our grandparents remarking on how movies were in black and white.
Dec. 15, 2012, 10:22 a.m. CST
by Mr. Pricklepants
It's the same effect that you get when you zoom in an image to 250% for example. It was really annoying. I almost wanted to leave, but I decided to stay in the end. So, for example, when the Company looks at the Lonely Mountain on that rock near the end, you can't see them clearly, because they're so pixelated. It was like that the entire movie. It can't be my eyes adjusting to 48 fps, because it was like that entire movie. They say you get used it after 15 minutes or so. It must have been something with the projection of the movie. What do you guys think?
Dec. 15, 2012, 10:26 a.m. CST
Dec. 15, 2012, 10:32 a.m. CST
by Talkbacker with no name
Your screening was fucked, man. It's not pixelated.
Dec. 15, 2012, 10:45 a.m. CST
by Mr. Pricklepants
Dec. 15, 2012, 10:56 a.m. CST
Someone need to show Jackson where the edit button is.... I spent all summer 2005 getting to skull island! Fool me once..
Dec. 15, 2012, 10:57 a.m. CST
Like cinematography, makeup or art direction because it makes them look so pedestrian.
Dec. 15, 2012, 11:13 a.m. CST
All they talk about is how good or bad it looked and all the technical aspects of the film. Even John says that the 48 fps is the main headline. That's kinda sad. I'll gladly watch a film shot on old Hi-8 tapes if the writing is good. I despise all this style over substance poop.
Dec. 15, 2012, 11:18 a.m. CST
by James Robinson
... dude... you sound like you're telling stories at nap-tie to 5 year olds. WTF? Stop talking thru your nose, stand up straight, and put a little life into your words.. fer PETE SAKE!
Dec. 15, 2012, 11:28 a.m. CST
When you or your editor is choosing background music, may I suggest you put down the "circus carnival" library and pick up something appropriate to what you're talking about. Otherwise good. Carry on.
Dec. 15, 2012, 11:47 a.m. CST
We can watch movies on our smart phones and tablets. We can turn on smooth motion settings on our high-def TV sets. Black & white movies can be colorized. God forbid someone wants to enjoy a classic like The Third Man or Night of the Living Dead in their original black and white. Can I still watch Aliens or Back to the Future at 24fps or will I be arrested by the technology police? You kids do realize that you're going to miss out on a ton of great old movies when all you care about is more and more tech. Then again, why am I even typing this response to this issue? This is the generation of pre-packaged superhero and toys-to-movies IP. The generation that texts and tweets in the movie theaters. You are the generation who holds Rotten Tomatoes as the arbiter of quality.
Dec. 15, 2012, 12:01 p.m. CST
Dec. 15, 2012, 12:05 p.m. CST
Dec. 15, 2012, 12:07 p.m. CST
Dec. 15, 2012, 12:11 p.m. CST
48fps hasn't proven itself as an improvement. Maybe it will get there, but now we can talk shit.
Dec. 15, 2012, 12:19 p.m. CST
by Pete Susoev
I've heard of two people now saying they felt dizzy during the 48fps presentation to the point they felt car sick. Just wondering if its anything like how certain video games can make you ill. Haven't really seen any other places making note of it, only if it sucks or not.
Dec. 15, 2012, 12:32 p.m. CST
I think it must have just been the cinema you saw it at. My viewing was crystal clear all the way through with perfect 3D. There was none of the flickering I normally experience with 3D when things are moving fast and there was so much detail in the picture. It was honestly the best looking movie I've ever seen, I don't understand where all the hate is coming from. I did notice that motion seemed to be sped up a little, especially in close shots, but I got used to it after a few minutes and it didn't bother me after that. Apparently that's only a perceived effect due to the lack of motion blur anyway.
Dec. 15, 2012, 12:57 p.m. CST
The Pro HFR Comments have to come from people that feel that Impressionist paintings are too fuzzy.
Dec. 15, 2012, 12:58 p.m. CST
I was really disappointed at how cheap it looked. After seeing star tours I was really pumped up for a Hfr, but the hobbit blew it.
Dec. 15, 2012, 1:16 p.m. CST
by Bouncy X
i'm willing to bet many of the people saying how this is the future, its evolution of the tech and people need to accept it and all that crap are the same ones who are constantly bitching because movies use CGI. you know like when the last Indy movie came out, all the whining because a movie made in 2008 didnt look like or utilize the tech from a movie made in 1989 or older. but as someone else said in another talkback, this whole HFR thing was just done to try and make 3D look better because of the complaints against it. of course no matter what you do 3D will always looks like a pop up book, doesnt matter if it was filmed that way or post converted, they all look the same and the effect is lost within 20mins and not even noticeable anymore because you're used to it. so its also pointless.
Dec. 15, 2012, 1:31 p.m. CST
Look how they're exploiting this shit already talking about taking your guns. I say guns are not the issue. Feeding you to our alien masters who consider you a delicacy is the issue.There's nothing to be suspicious about with the government's actions of arming themselves with hollow points or any of that whole completely preparing for civil unrest at every level and in broad daylight in full view of all of you and suspicious activity at every fucking level of every aspect of the presidency even to the point of not being an American and can't just prove that and every fucking right you have constantly being stripped away while feeding you gmo death and on and on and on. Nothing at all to worry about. Nothing remotely strange or suspicious. As you were. Oh and go see hobbit in 48p 3D instead of like some little bitch ass.
Dec. 15, 2012, 1:43 p.m. CST
Dec. 15, 2012, 1:47 p.m. CST
All we had were pieces of paper that you moved really fast and the stick figures looked like they were moving, and we LIKED it! We went to the back yard and people jumped around and shouted with sticks, acting out Robinson Crusoe and whatever Jules Verne book was out, and we LIKED it! WE didn't have the fancy, schmancy movie projectors with their Three Deeeeeee, or that newfangled glasses with the black rims with the black on the inside! We had half a Deeee, cause we all needed glasses to see in the first place and everything looked like it upside down and we LIKED it! So take your 48 frames, and your 24 frames and your 4 frames and get lost!!
Dec. 15, 2012, 1:52 p.m. CST
technically superior but it looks like a throwback to a time where a faster framerate was indicative of a high-end home movie. And the responses it gets! Fascinating.
Dec. 15, 2012, 1:55 p.m. CST
Dec. 15, 2012, 1:56 p.m. CST
It came and went, I usually noticed on the post card moments. Elrond deciphering the map on the dais with the moon beam, ect. They brought a big grin to my face everytime. As did sun halo effects. Is it for every movie, no. Is it for this kind of movie. I think yes, but thats my opinion.
Dec. 15, 2012, 1:57 p.m. CST
Dec. 15, 2012, 1:59 p.m. CST
Dec. 15, 2012, 2:03 p.m. CST
back to normal but seems to be same look but with only 24p it looks like film. Does film just really look like this glowy stuff and we just never knew it because we were seeing half the frames and it's a persistence of vision effect?
Dec. 15, 2012, 2:05 p.m. CST
Dec. 15, 2012, 2:13 p.m. CST
That's what I thought. I'ma big technology buff, so this was something that I was REALLY looking forward to and that logical part of my brain was telling me that something seemed broken, because what was presented COULDN'T have been the true intent of 48FPS. As I mentioned, I've emailed the theater owner with a friendly response, stated what I put above, and hopefully they'll look into it. I'll be going to see the film on Monday in HFR 3D at a different theater, non IMAX, and will hopefully be putting a rave review into these talkbacks to get chewed up and spit back out.
Dec. 15, 2012, 2:16 p.m. CST
doubt if i wasn't told i would have known. there are spots were scenes look like they are on a stage but nothing i can rally attribute to the increased frame rate rather than lighting or simple it being in HD. bigger problem with the film is exposition.
Dec. 15, 2012, 2:20 p.m. CST
didn't notice the "ripping" of 3D effects like i usually do with those films when an object moves too fast or is out of focus.
Dec. 15, 2012, 2:37 p.m. CST
Dec. 15, 2012, 3:07 p.m. CST
by brad negrotto
how people waste their money on shit like 3d, 48fps, 120hz, and the likes. It looks like crap. 3d goes away after 15 minutes, and all the rest look like garbage soap operas my mother watched when I was kid. Why would filmmakers want to use what amounts to a high-end vhs recorder baffles me.
Dec. 15, 2012, 3:15 p.m. CST
Everything looked faker than it needed to be. You could spot the makeup and it was extremely obvious that much of the movie has been shot on a sound stage thanks to the fake looking illumination. It was like a theater production of the Hobbit instead of watching a movie and it took me out of the story. Even the CGI looked less realistic. Not the way to go for me. I have seen footage with 96 fps, now this looked interesting, clearer motion than 24 fps but lacking the artificial feeling of 48 fps (at least as seen in the Hobbit). Maybe there is a future for higher frame rates after all, but the sensors will have to improve for low light shots.
Dec. 15, 2012, 3:19 p.m. CST
Just my $0.02...saw the IMAX showing opening night and didn't even realize I was watching the 48fps version until I checked just now. I hate the soap opera effect new HDTV's can sometimes give movies and I won't watch my AVATAR Blu-ray because of that very reason, but the difference of frame rate during THE HOBBIT went completely over my head. Looking back I thought there was something off with the way some of the scenes looked (the goblin escape and Radagast's diversion looked like cut scenes from a video game), but I was never taken completely out of the movie by it like I am when I watch a movie in tru-motion at home. Conversely, some of the scenes I knew were cg (interactions with the white orc, riddles in the dark) looked amazingly real; so much that I was questioning whether I was looking at practical effects or something computer animated, and in the Gollum’s case, knowing it was a cg performance capture made the incredible effects that much more, well, incredible. At first I chalked this up to the 10+ years of cg development, but now know what I saw was in HFR, and I’m beginning to think this transition isn’t as jarring as I once thought. As stated above, I don’t like to watch AVATAR on Blu-ray because it looks fake. I saw it in the same IMAX theater in 3D and loved it, but at home everything looks plastic, like it was ripped from a video game. I didn’t notice it for a second watching THE HOBBIT, which if given the choice I would have seen in 24fps, and I think those who are so against it simply haven’t seen it and are spouting venom because it’s different. That was me until 15 minutes ago.<br><br><b>TL;DR</b>I hate anything shot in HFR, but didn’t realize until now I saw THE HOBBIT in 48fps and I loved it.
Dec. 15, 2012, 3:26 p.m. CST
Sounds and looks like Karl Pilkington talking about his brain.
Dec. 15, 2012, 3:52 p.m. CST
by Steve Lamarre
Fuck that, this fucker DRAAGS. Peter Jackson turned it into his masturbatorium.
Dec. 15, 2012, 3:52 p.m. CST
he will go even more veryvery fast and even more v- e- r- y--- v- e- r- y slow.
Dec. 15, 2012, 3:59 p.m. CST
by Johnny Wrong
...disappointing movie, but nothing at all to do with the frame rate. The effects look like effects in some shots, more so than they did before, but it's no deal-breaker. ike I said, though. It's a disappointment.
Dec. 15, 2012, 4:33 p.m. CST
by Real Deal
I don't want color Movies should look like movies. I don't want sound! Movies should look like movies! The thing here is that it's been awhile since there's been a big advancement in the way movies show on the screen ( 3D maybe ). However I don't think they should arrest progress in the way they are shown. If you don't like it pay less and watch it at that mom and pop theater and save money. But don't ask the rest of us to stay in the past. Movies should look the best that they can given the current technology and the measuring stick for that in the past has always been increasing the feeling of reality.
Dec. 15, 2012, 4:37 p.m. CST
it's unbelievable world simply nonbelievable." That's how one critic began his review of the hobbit. He hated it and recommended people see only 24fps. He saw both versions. Guess ill have to judge for myself.
Dec. 15, 2012, 4:41 p.m. CST
by Real Deal
I saw 2001 in cinerama when it first came out in 1968. I was floored by how good it looked! I was watching it in the balconey and when they have that opening scene with the earth rising above the moon and the sun above that I almost fell out of my chair at how good it looked! There were no seems so you're talking out of your ass.
Dec. 15, 2012, 4:50 p.m. CST
does it? i imagine it would since they need to render twice as many frames at an even higher resolution compared to an average blockbuster.
Dec. 15, 2012, 5:02 p.m. CST
Something nobody mentioned yet is that water and fire simply looks real. Natural elements look like they do in reality and that's better. A James bond movie like this would better place you in exotic locations. So you can have your 24p 100+ year old shit. I'm down with soap opera land o the lost vision.
Dec. 15, 2012, 5:05 p.m. CST
That potentially raises the question of whether the new film format is in some way pushing the limits of human physiology, and in particular the way in which the human brain processes information, limits which may not necessarily be the same across the entire range of the human species but differ from one individual to another. Some of the comments on this page almost suggest as much. That of ryanmurray, for example. The "choppy effect" he describes is kind of what you'd expect if the information being presented to him by the cinema screen was faster than his brain could process. If that is indeed the case, then this new film format could face a hurdle unlike that of any previous one, especially if those who cannot fully deal with the new format are a substantial enough minority.
Dec. 15, 2012, 5:12 p.m. CST
I do eat my own boogers and am wearing my shirt inside out. I kid, I kid. ;) That very well could be a huge part of it. That's one thing I'm going to consider when I go to another theater and watch it in HFR 3D. If I still get the same phenomena, then I'll chalk it up to my VERY VERY VERY BAD and astigmatism-wracked eyes. (-7.75 in each eye) Or maybe my brain just can't handle the FPS. I'd like to think differently because I've been playing racing simulations for a decade+ and I've grown attuned to telling the difference in FPS drops over monitors. Which, granted, isn't a direct comparison. But as others have mentioned, video games have been running higher FPS for ages now. I don't think it is the case, but I'm willing to keep an open mind. I've got no problems with my own television running TruMotion or ClearMotion. But there very well could be a physical reaction, here. We'll see on Monday!
Dec. 15, 2012, 5:22 p.m. CST
by Uncle Stan
William Castle was a genius.
Dec. 15, 2012, 5:53 p.m. CST
Is porn. The clarity and detail is made for it. It might actually bring back porno theaters. It is possibly too much information for storytelling, because the eye wants to pick up so much visual detail, it does distract the brain from concentrating on story, character, and narrative details. Which is why 2001 and Lawrence of Arabia seem so slow on video, it was meant for a theater experience it factors in your eyes absorbing so much intense detail, the story moves faster.
Dec. 15, 2012, 6:18 p.m. CST
Just because something is new and different doesn't make it better, we have had tech for 48fps for years. This isn't people bitching about DVD's early on because they aren't VHS tapes, or the silent film era going to talkies. This is just a poor aesthetic decision made by a great filmmaker, and it wouldn't be the first time in history that's happened. We can just accept it and move on, or become mindless trolls and just accept that something is better cuz Peter Jackson says so.
Dec. 15, 2012, 6:42 p.m. CST
This just shows that our brains are wired differently, and that some of us are more amenable to change than others. I think 48 fps could become the future as more and more people become exposed to its "norm".
Dec. 15, 2012, 6:46 p.m. CST
Saw it today and it was a beautiful experience. Very smooth picture, 3d was very comfortable, and sorry but it didn't feel long at all, wish it would of kept going. Was so clear you could see Mr. Ian's contacts. Hope the next two and the star wars flicks get filmed this way. Crowd I was with loved it and there were a lot of wow's in the theater. Great time.
Dec. 15, 2012, 6:53 p.m. CST
by Bill Kilgore
I got out of the theatre not quite four hours ago, which has given me enough time to compose responses which may be useful to at least some of the folks here. Sorry if any of this is redundant. Pros: 1) As already mentioned in quite a few reviews and responses to this version of the film, 3D is brighter and easier on the eyes at 48fps. This was the first 3D experience which was as comfortable for me to view as standard 2D/24fps movies are. ( That being said, there is precious [ ha, worked in a pun ] little content in The Hobbit which is significantly enhanced by 3D... maybe thirty seconds of the film, if that. ) 2) There is quite a bit more subtle information bing presented in shots which have motion of some type. Inanimate objects which are flying through the air, for instance, seem to be more substantial at HFR. More presence in the visual field. Cons: 1) In nearly every scene where some form of fire was used, it looked over-saturated in colour and over-exposed in relation to the rest of the image. This was most noticable during interior scenes. 2) Again as related elsewhere, CGI animation in places wasn't as effective as one might expect from the forces involved in this film. Quite simply, there wasn't enough textural information on the screen to have some CGI creatures ( not all ) appear natural in their surroundings... not enough detail in the contours, for instance. This is most evident with the four-legged animations. So much for pros and cons. I also have a few more observations which are more subjective in nature. First, all of the actors in the film seemed to be moving normally, neither too quickly or too slowly. The movements always seemed natural and fluid. Thus was my perception. Second, the film didn't drag for me at all. I was still wanting more at the end, so as far as I am concerned PJ has the film well-paced and correctly proportioned. Finally, the overall look of the movie was that of live, high-quality video. Some of the sets did seem less convincing, though they were still impressive to behold. I'll probably have another shot at the movie during Christmas week, and I'll see it in 24fps/2D. Then maybe I can return with more useful comparisons. For now, I would say that this HFR/3D/CGI combination is worth exploring, but the technologies need to evolve and improve before all aspects of such projects will have consistently pleasing results.
Dec. 15, 2012, 6:55 p.m. CST
by Chris Moody
It seems like a realistic character drama with no FX shots might be bolstered by the added realism. What do you think?
Dec. 15, 2012, 7:01 p.m. CST
by Chris Moody
...I still include some of them on my "greatest films" list. Consider JAWS...STAR TREK 2...SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE...any of the HITCHCOCK films (which had many scenes filmed in front of painted sets or screens)...ET...THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL...PLANET OF THE APES. All of these films had FX that sometimes makes me cringe when I see it today, but the greatness of the film was not diminished by the shoddy or dated special effects work. That is my question about this film. Does the film stand on the merits of the acting, fantasy, story, plot, etc...? I don't think that the 48 FPS will affect my enjoyment of a film any more than bad FX in other "classics."
Dec. 15, 2012, 7:02 p.m. CST
Can we get this straight people? The characters don't move faster, your eyes are just getting more information, much as they do in real life. This is why reality looks faster and why film always looks a little slow-motion. For a few people this will be a problem, but that number is vanishingly small. For the rest of you it's just conservative snobbery: it's new, it's different and you don't like that. It's as reactionary as the complaints back in the day when soundies came in. "Oh no - they ruined cinema!" The hell it ruins cinema, it just means you have to learn something new. Get your arses into the 21st century and accept that what you have come to know and love is a pale shadow of what the screen can be, the result of a technical compromise from nearly a century in the past.
Dec. 15, 2012, 7:17 p.m. CST
well said...lots of very dim people posting and you can school them a bit even though most still won't get it.
Dec. 15, 2012, 7:41 p.m. CST
It's not new, someone just finally made a major motion picture with it. And if I'm not mistaken the HFR is only being shown with 3D correct? They aren't screening any 2D presentations in HFR are they? Hence it's just a helper for 3D, and will never become the norm for regular films, because it looks like shit otherwise.
Dec. 15, 2012, 8:38 p.m. CST
It looks so damn..."fake". It's like watching them film the movie instead of watching the finished product. Any time I'm at someone's house that has a TV with the faster frame and that sped up look it just ruins anything that's on.
Dec. 15, 2012, 8:38 p.m. CST
It doesn't matter whether someone who doesn't get the tech reasons behind the "sped up" feeling of some of the motion mislabels the effect as fast moving characters. They think it looks bad and/or cheap and that's all that matters. The argument that those who dislike the look of HFR are equivalent to the Vinyl snobs of the late 80's or any other group fighting against text advancements is misguided. It's aesthetics. Some people love the look of Monet's paintings while others prefer the more photo realistic work of a painter like Rockwell. Your opinion is no more valid than that of someone who hated the look. Just because it's new doesn't make it better. I don't see how anyone can argue that the Hobbit in HFR doesn't look like a very well done video sourced production. For some that look is preferable to the classic cinema feeling one gets from 24FPS material. All I'll say is watch the Hobbit in HFR then go home and watch Fellowship on Blu Ray and tell me which one fells like a high end epic fantasy film and which one looks like a cross between a BBC drama and a Video game cinematic.
Dec. 15, 2012, 9:09 p.m. CST
Dec. 15, 2012, 9:11 p.m. CST
John: nice, well put insights mate. Good stuff. Batzilla: you won the talkback. Cracked me up. Justmyluck: VERY interesting info. Nice one.
Dec. 15, 2012, 9:36 p.m. CST
I gotta agree it's terrible when it comes to Live action / CGI heavy movies like The Hobbit. If it was all Animated / CGI like say "Wall-E" or if it was all Live action like say "Cirque du Soleil : Worlds Away" then it would be worth going to see. The Hobbit felt half the time like it was filmed with a camcorder, drained the life out of any scene where the actors had to walk or move (especially McCoy's chase scenes with the ogers! The rear screen projection looked VERY fake!!). But the landscapes looked amazing, so did Gollum! The CGI for Gollum was great and more life-like than in the previous films (not sure if that's just CGI tech or the 48fps that made the difference!). Some of the scenes where you had a wide shot of the actors walking felt like it was "tilt-shifted", felt fake. All in all it kills any "fantasy" aspect for me in regards to the hobbit! But can't wait to see what other directors do with 48fps.
Dec. 15, 2012, 9:37 p.m. CST
Just saw "An Unexpected Journey" and thought the 48fps was spectacular. I wasn't expecting to, based on all the negative feedback I'd read, but I did. Loved it. Thought it added incredible punch and realism to the story. It's weird that I'm one of maybe the few who enjoyed it, but I can't deny that I loved how it looked and felt. Believe me, I can see how less knowledgeable directors will bungle the technology to horrifying results. I really can. But I thought Peter Jackson guided the story with a steady, creative hand that didn't stray. He deserves mad props for this, in my opinion. Because as humanity moves forward, 48fps, then 60, then 120, then 240, then upwards of this, will lead to virtual reality-level visions of life and stories. Some of it will be gorgeously beautiful and memorable, some of it will be forgettable or worse. Regardless, I liked "An Unexpected Journey." Thought it packed a major punch emotionally and visually, and I can't wait to see it again. Nice job, Pete!
Dec. 15, 2012, 9:44 p.m. CST
by Stifler's Mom
New is not necessarily better. Much like 3D, this is a GIMMICK, pure and simple. It's interesting as pure novelty, but detrimental to a full-length feature. I'm excited for any technology that improves the filmmaking process. This is not it. FAIL.
Dec. 15, 2012, 9:44 p.m. CST
...and looks like your nephew's birthday party from 1993 that you shot on your camcorder.
Dec. 15, 2012, 10 p.m. CST
Everyone that I know that saw it in 48fps hated it, and all the folks that saw it with me in 24 fps loved it. That can't possibly be a coincidence. 48fps is ruining a good movie for a bunch of people. If you want to have a good experience with the movie, see it the same way you saw the original LOTR films. See it in 24fps.
Dec. 15, 2012, 10:08 p.m. CST
by Chris Moody
I hate to say it, but people have been claiming that "3D is a gimmick" for about eight or nine years now. While I would certainly say that it is not my cup of tea -- I think that it is safe to say that it is "mainstream" now. It also accounts for a large and consistent chunk of box office plunder.
Dec. 15, 2012, 10:36 p.m. CST
Just got thru seeing it, I feel like the first part of the film in the actions scenes, things were more jolting and not as well put together, but by the end of the film...WOW!! The scenes by the fireplace were so intimate and felt like you were in the room. The smoothness and clarity to me make it harder for a director to get the "atmospherics" of a film correct, much like the TV's that smooth movies out to much. They make you feel like your on the set of the movie but not in the movie. Come to think of it wont this frame rate make stop motion animators life hell?
Dec. 15, 2012, 11:05 p.m. CST
48 fps, and that is they all vote conservative (republican). Change happens, the status quot will not be maintained. Deal with it!!!
Dec. 15, 2012, 11:16 p.m. CST
Back when they were doing the standards for film, the studio execs got together and figured out that 24 fps is the lowest you could go while still being profitable. The higher the framerate the more film you need, hence more money. Any statement that 24fps was chosen because of it's dreamlike quality is historical revisionism. I'm not saying every film should be 48 fps, but there is room for both. If you didn't watch movies in 24 fps your whole life there wouldn't be a problem.Just as with the advent of sound in films, people still have a hard time accepting change. Don't be a luddite.
Dec. 15, 2012, 11:19 p.m. CST
I wish PJ had never filmed it in 48fps. *Gandalf: So do all who live to see such times, but that is not for you to decide, only Peter Jackson can decide such things.* Yeah, I know Gandalf, but everyone is focusing on that! I'm sick of it! I'm... *Gandalf: Orionsangels! Do not take me for a conjurer of cheap tricks! I'm merely trying to help you* Sorry Gandalf.
Dec. 15, 2012, 11:52 p.m. CST
by brad negrotto
Your theory is wrong.
Dec. 15, 2012, 11:58 p.m. CST
A few years ago the NBA brought in a new type of ball. The grip was terrible and the material actually cut some players hands. They switched back to the classic ball within weeks. Not all change is good. This 48fps makes movies look like a bunch of assholes in costumes, instead of creating the illusion we all love. I do not like feeling like I'm on the set.
Dec. 16, 2012, 1:06 a.m. CST
Dec. 16, 2012, 1:07 a.m. CST
Your theory has failed.
Dec. 16, 2012, 1:13 a.m. CST
...who was singing the praises of 48fps just jizzed over the fact that you could actually see Ian Holm's contact lenses. I think that pretty much sums up the format's supporters and their priorities.
Dec. 16, 2012, 1:35 a.m. CST
I'm appalled that all these negative people have the nerve to run off about how this film was crap and 48fps is crap. Enough already. This experience is absolutely amazing. My jaw was floored from start to finish. Granted it won't work for everything, but I cannot wait to see the rest of this trilogy in 48fps 3D. Stop the hate and get over yourselves. For those who are on the fence about it, fall off and go be amazed.
Dec. 16, 2012, 1:42 a.m. CST
Most of the showings of the Hobbit at my cinema are in 24 FPS. The option is there to watch it in 48 but the minority of people will not be seeing it in this format I'd imagine, mainly because they have no idea what it is. My question is why do you want to stop those of us who don't have broken eyes from enjoying this new technology? You can still see it in whichever format you want.
Dec. 16, 2012, 3 a.m. CST
Dec. 16, 2012, 3:04 a.m. CST
So I did not notice a thing except the image was sharper, but 3D is such a departure from 2D 24fps anyway, I really did not notice it.
Dec. 16, 2012, 3:07 a.m. CST
Dec. 16, 2012, 3:08 a.m. CST
and I did not notice it then either. I actually though they shot the film with some diffusion on the lens anyway for the dream sequence, so Showscan did not do a thing for me back then either.
Dec. 16, 2012, 4:05 a.m. CST
It works for gaming and sport shows. But cheapens the look of narrative movies to that of a sitcom on set or really pretty documentary of the Discovery Channel. The pros don't out weigh the cons from both a production cost and movie going experience.
Dec. 16, 2012, 5:15 a.m. CST
And yet very often the truest and most "connected" emotional link with story/character is via the written word. It may be that moving towards a closer approximation as to how we do actually see things in real life might mean a more surface emotional response. Perhaps when the image is grainy/2d/flickery some part of the human brain kicks in to fill in the gaps in glorious 4D. It may be that HFR is no match for the human brain.
Dec. 16, 2012, 6:32 a.m. CST
by Talkbacker with no name
Dec. 16, 2012, 6:42 a.m. CST
by Bedknobs and Boomsticks
and then have it revert back to 24fps for everything else?
Dec. 16, 2012, 7:57 a.m. CST
YUP. When my wife and I upgraded to a 50" tv a few years ago, plasmas hit bargain basement prices because of that. Plasmas are far superior, especially for watching movies, although they do weigh more and will increase your electric bill (but they'll also produce more heat, so in the winter, it's like a space heater/tv!). I don't think LCD's are bad, necessarily, they still look amazing when calibrated properly and that tru-motion bullshit is turned off, and compared to the sets I grew up with, I'm still stunned that we can watch movies and television in this manner.
Dec. 16, 2012, 8:04 a.m. CST
doesn't mean that it isn't better for the art form. 24 fps gives movies more of a dream-like quality. I don't think I want to go see Vertigo and have it feel like everything in it is real and happening on the other side of the screen. But more than that, that's NOT what reality feels like to me... at all. Even though 24 fps is dream-like, 48 and beyond actually feels FAKE and PLASTIC. I personally think this has more to do with digital projection. I think FILM projected at higher frame rates probably would go over a lot better than digital, which already has issues with seeming plastic and inferior, and then the 48fps just exacerbates this. And why do I get the distinct impression that all the people saying, "You guys bitching are gonna sound like old fogeys in 20 years," are the mouth breathers that spend 10 hours a day on xbox live.
Dec. 16, 2012, 8:11 a.m. CST
Watch all those bts things edited together on youtube (it's like 90 minutes!) and you'll see what I mean. The way PJ makes movies on this scale at the speed he does causes quality to suffer. THAT'S the real problem. I don't like 48fps, but I'd wager fewer people would complain if he'd just spend an additional 6 months on VFX or not push his people so hard to delivery so many shots in so little time. The quality suffers. And he and his team seem to wear this as a badge of honor. I work in television and the same shit happens in post-production where, when we actually get an episode out on time, everyone breathes a sigh of relief and goes, "See, we did it! When you guys work 16-20 hour days for a few weeks, we can hit these deadlines!" And I'm like, yeah, but I could have done a much better job and not had so many bad music edits, poor cut-aways, etc., if you had just done it on a normal schedule and not created this fucking insane atmosphere of chaos, which some people seem to thrive in or they NEED to feel like they're under the gun. And we're all exhausted and I KNOW, from my own inner experience, that I'm not doing work at the same level cause I'm exhausted and just trying to get it done. Anyway, all that stuff in the BTS docs about the vfx people sleeping at work isn't something to be proud of, imho. It's clear the VFX suffer and could be better if he'd either A) Focus on quality shots instead of quantity (something Spielberg is AMAZING at) or B) Give them more time to get it done and not come up with 500 new vfx shots at the last second to see if they'll actually get it done. Because they will... they have to... but it doesn't mean the stuff will LOOK good.
Dec. 16, 2012, 8:37 a.m. CST
...as was Two Towers.
Dec. 16, 2012, 8:42 a.m. CST
I can never get used to that shit, looks so terrible. You can take an amazing looking movie, and when you speed it up it looks like some crappy ass made for TV home video...
Dec. 16, 2012, 8:45 a.m. CST
...so get yourself to Cineworld Sheffield where the projection was flawless (but then it is one of the newest IMAX cinemas in the UK). My opinion is that critics are out to bury Jackson and Middle Earth. I loved The Hobbit... it took me places where no other movie has this year (or in the past for that matter, the exceptions being something like Gance's Napoleon, Lang's Metropolis). I'll be seeing it again this week, this time with my kids present... yes, it's going to scare em, but I saw Jaws with my dad when I was six (in 75).
Dec. 16, 2012, 9:57 a.m. CST
Small sample, I know...but the fight clips in the trailer were tough to see what's going on; very similar to the TRANSFORMERS problem. If 48fps has a place it has to be in action scenes with lots of CGI elements.
Dec. 16, 2012, 11:21 a.m. CST
Dec. 16, 2012, 12:15 p.m. CST
Everything looked like it was in fast forward and the picture was way too dark. I left and walked into a 2D showing.
Dec. 16, 2012, 1:27 p.m. CST
LotR apologists are as bad as Star Wars geeks, you'd think after spending all the time and effort on LotR Jackson wouldn't want to see anything middle earth for the rest of his days but instead launches into another 3 film whackfest? I hate these stupid bloated movies, haven't you Hobbit freaks had enough? God it's all so boring and shitty I wouldn't see this crap for free if they sent a litter to carry me to the theater! As far as the new format goes jackoff's like Cameron blather about "film" while they churn out commercial crap like Avatard. Film hasn't been "film" since the 70's, face it, it all looks and watches like a video game these days and you poor saps argue about tech spec's while they feed you a Total Recall remake? HA! Jokes on you, high def bullshit still stinks and sticks to your shoes, it just looks "real" while you scrape it. Do yourself a favor and get a copy of Little Big Man and watch something truly awesome instead of stunted goofball grown men running around with feet prosthetic's and stubby little swords. Look at yourselves....disgraceful.
Dec. 16, 2012, 1:32 p.m. CST
you got it spot on. I watched the Return of the king behind the scenes and from that I understood why there was so many iffy scenes (particularly near the end) There was too much workload on a tight deadline. As a result the finished film was inconsistant.
Dec. 16, 2012, 1:40 p.m. CST
...they are only in the mindset of the present audience. The films will have less impact to future audiences many years from now. Those who will watch them in order. Empire strikes back "vaders secret" I knew vader was Lukes father already from episode 1 whats the big deal?..Less impact. Fellowship "Gandalf trapped by saruman" I know Gandalf will escape from saruman on a eagle!..He called them with a moth before in the Hobbit...Tension from scene lost
Dec. 16, 2012, 1:41 p.m. CST
Dec. 16, 2012, 1:44 p.m. CST
I really wish I'd seen the film in 24 fps, 48 made the film look like it was shot for the BBC in the mid-eighties. Highlights were blown out, things looked sped up, and the crystal clarity was a deterrent not an asset. I actually liked the movie even though I thought the whole Rivendell sequence should have been left on the cutting room floor (the last hour saves the film from being bleh). The human brain doesn't really perceive above 40 fps (it sees 60 but we don't perceive that) so this technology push is going to bother a large portion of the audience. I see it as a failed experiment and I hope this is not the future of film as it was completely un-cinematic. Uncanny Valley indeed!
Dec. 16, 2012, 3:25 p.m. CST
by Stan Arthur
It's caused by watching movies at 24 fps. When I saw Trumball's Showscan back in the 80's, I was blown away and I'm pretty sure it was 60 fps. I'm excited about faster frame rates and better 3D than we currently have. I saw The Hobbit in IMAX 3D 24 fps and was underwhelmed. Some action was too fast and shakey for my taste on a screen that size. It's disorienting. Depth of field was at times too shallow for good 3D. I suspect that I'll go see it in 48 fps for comparison.
Dec. 16, 2012, 3:38 p.m. CST
his reviews are always spot on!
Dec. 16, 2012, 4:28 p.m. CST
Watch hummingbirds filmed in digital slow motion at ONE THOUSAND FRAMES PER SECOND. Still blur in their wings. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYsAnf-48r0
Dec. 16, 2012, 4:44 p.m. CST
by Stan Arthur
as I write this, I'm watching Tintin in 1080p with smooth motion effect on high and it is GLORIOUS.I've never seen anything like it on any screen.
Dec. 16, 2012, 4:49 p.m. CST
I ask that because your previous post implied you believed 60FPS removed the motion blur inherent in motion pictures.
Dec. 16, 2012, 4:51 p.m. CST
Dec. 16, 2012, 4:54 p.m. CST
Dec. 16, 2012, 5:03 p.m. CST
by Stan Arthur
the fact remains that 24 frames per second was determined to be the very least number of frames per second that was supposedly necessary to create the illusion of realistic motion, long before our current era a of fast action films and handheld camera work. It wasn't decided on for artistic reasons. It was for economy. It's outdated and obsolete.
Dec. 16, 2012, 5:14 p.m. CST
If interested, scroll up to my *persistence of vision* post, which has a link. I'm suggesting you read up on the technical aspects of the technology you're making bold statements on, because you previous concepts: - there is no blur in 60 FPS; - smooth motion removes blur in an animated movie deliberately rendered with 24FPS blur; - 24 being the number of frames *necessary to create the illusion of realistic motion*, when films were once hand-cranked and 18FPS... ...all bogus.
Dec. 16, 2012, 5:15 p.m. CST
I think the criticisms that are consistent are that some scenes look awesome, some scenes look bad, some scenes look half assed. Thats not a problem resultant from 48fps, thats a problem resultant from the production and post production of the movie. Someone said above that PJ released the extended edition of AUJ as the theatrical version, and I get that.. can there honestly be any leftover footage from this? It stopped being bloated at about the 2hr mark! I'd much rather have seen a tight 2hr version of this movie at 48fps and if that was the case I don't think anyone would be complaining... Particularly not the studio who would have been able to get more showings per day. IMO the scenes that don't work aren't due to the 48fps conversion (telecine) they're due to the fact that they're half-assed filler scenes to spread out the run time of the movie. To a previous posters point, having VFX team sleep at the office is not something to be proud of, it's a sign that there is something drastically amiss in the post process. The comments that people are making that stuff like "riddle in the dark scene was perfect" is true because those are the scenes they were worried about...those are the scenes they got right... and other scenes that people are complaining about looking like a video game (Radagast chase, Rivendell mattes, Goblin fights) were more than likely delegated to the "overnight team" as chaff to figure out and deal with. Intro scenes could have been cut by about 5 minutes, Radagast scenes (whether you like the character or not) could have been cut significantly, Radagast-Orc chase could have been cut completely, much of the Goblin scenes could have been cut out. I'm speaking as a big fan of Peter Jackson from his early work, being a huge fan of LOTR as a series of books and happy with them as a series of movies... but IMO for PJ, King Kong was an absolute mess and stopped me from seeing the Lovely Bones. I think the smarter marketing play for these movies would have been 2hrs at holiday season and finish with a bang on memorial day weekend 5 months later. Two movies and out.
Dec. 16, 2012, 5:51 p.m. CST
It's one of the more annoying things that people keep saying. When I first saw high frame rates on HDTV's I was shocked by how fake it looked. Like a pixar cartoon or something. I originally chalked it up to the fact that more than half of the frames were generated by the TV's computer. But now the criticisms that I am hearing of native 48fps sound exactly like my criticisms of the fake smooth motion stuff. (I still haven't watched the hobbit tho) For me, 24fps looks like what I see in the real world. HFR does not. It looks like a cartoon. Now I've heard that 60fps looks real. And this makes some sense. The idea is that there are "sweet spots" in frame rate. The kind of visual processing your brain does is really complex, and from what I've heard, you actually "see" at about 24-25 fps, due to the way your brain sorts things. So 24fps is simply displaying a picture in your brain's native format. In real life, there is no framerate, but there is also infinite information from which your brain constructs its internal images. So it may be a case that 48fps is simply too fast to match your native framerate, but too slow to give enough information for you brain to construct an accurate internal representation. Even so, people need to stop with this shit of "48fps is more real". IF an artificial construct of "framerate" does not LOOK real, then it does not look real. There is nothing inherently or objectively more "realistic" about it.
Dec. 16, 2012, 6:45 p.m. CST
by brad negrotto
I would bet a lot of people walked out HFR Hobbit not knowing they even witnessed something different. I run into these people all the time. The ones with their tv's on trumotion or something similar. When I complain about it, and turn it off for them, they can't even tell the difference. I don't know the reasonings for this. Maybe it's just because I've been a photographer and dabbled in films my whole life, and these people aren't trained to really look at an image the way others are. I really don't know. But 48fps looks like garbage. Blur is a natural effect. Look at a hummingbird, as another talk-backer put it, and tell me what you see? Unfortunately, I bet it's the people that don't notice the difference that will sell 48fps to executives. It won't be the people that love it or hate.
Dec. 16, 2012, 7:05 p.m. CST
Dec. 16, 2012, 7:07 p.m. CST
that five years from now, the Hobbit's horrible soap opera-looking shinyness will be comparable to the shameless cashgrab that 95 percent of all 3D movies have been and will continue to be? Fuck that. give me a film, shot like a film.
Dec. 16, 2012, 7:10 p.m. CST
but i suspect the 24 fps still looks like shit because of the way they shot it. won't know til it hits blu-ray though, because i''m waiting til i can chapter-skip past the pointless sidebars.
Dec. 16, 2012, 7:10 p.m. CST
The action is incomprehensible in the TF films because Bay over-designed the TFs and the action is quick-cut, all-over-the-place crap. MORE detail will just make it worse.
Dec. 16, 2012, 7:26 p.m. CST
by Son of a Butch
I saw The Hobbit tonight in 48fps 3D. It looked fucking amazing. I swear, if "talkies" were introduced today, certain people would be complaining that film is a visual medium and what the fuck is this AUDIO crap doing in my movie and I don't go to the movie theater to hear a fucking radio show and it's ruining the visual artistry and raping my childhood uphill both ways. Make no mistake, 48FPS *IS* an improvement, we're just so used to the inherent flaws and artefacts of 24FPS that it's unsettling to see them gone. That is not a weakness of the new format, it is actually a strength, it just takes some getting used to. As for this talk of how 24 FPS gives an ethereal/dreamlike quality to the motion or whatever... There's nothing to stop that from still being done, *if* that is an effect the director wishes to utilize in a movie. But now they have a choice, a broader cinematic palette to work with. That is not a bad thing at all.
Dec. 16, 2012, 7:34 p.m. CST
I wish they could accept improvements without dragging their feet. Just like Republicans.
Dec. 16, 2012, 7:49 p.m. CST
by brad negrotto
I wish people would start accepting critical thinking instead of being a bully on the internet.
Dec. 16, 2012, 7:58 p.m. CST
Dec. 16, 2012, 8:05 p.m. CST
For those who didn't notice a difference at an Imax double check that is was a HFR showing. There are 2 IMAX screens near me and one showed it in HFR the other did not. HFR took a while to get used to but then so did blu-ray. Definitely here to stay.
Dec. 16, 2012, 8:13 p.m. CST
Digital is not new, it's been around for quite some time. You probably waited a few years before the switch.
Dec. 16, 2012, 8:17 p.m. CST
by brad negrotto
I thought it just came out. And yes I waited awhile before I switched. They early cameras weren't as good as today's iphones. Just face it, pal. Your argument is junk and at best.
Dec. 16, 2012, 8:23 p.m. CST
Your argument isn't compelling either. Lots of people who aren't "photographers" noticed the difference. And they liked it.
Dec. 16, 2012, 8:26 p.m. CST
by brad negrotto
"these people aren't trained to really look at an image the way others are". Followed by, "I really don't know".
Dec. 16, 2012, 8:50 p.m. CST
I'm sure in a couple years you will love 48 frames when you know it's hip to like it.
Dec. 16, 2012, 8:52 p.m. CST
by Queefer Sutherland
I'm usually a big dick in these talkbacks and should say something cruel there, but you just seem too likable, and you're not nearly as stupid as some of those who are featured on AICN. Good job!
Dec. 16, 2012, 8:53 p.m. CST
by brad negrotto
Dec. 16, 2012, 8:56 p.m. CST
Dec. 16, 2012, 8:58 p.m. CST
People keep talking about how long a movie has to be to play in real Imax. It doesn't matter anymore. All Imax are digital and all the movies are shown from a hard drive... they USED to be when they used film that you could only go a certain length because of the size of the platter that holds the film so LESS than 2 hrs. (2 hrs was max which is why they cut SW EP 2 down)
Dec. 16, 2012, 9 p.m. CST
Aren't there some film IMAX locations left? Thought there were.
Dec. 16, 2012, 9:10 p.m. CST
I heard it takes you 53 minutes to get out of your mothers dress. Now that's a drag!
Dec. 16, 2012, 9:16 p.m. CST
'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey': How Is 48 Frames Per Second?
Dec. 16, 2012, 9:31 p.m. CST
Well, that was just plain bizarre! Everything in the post except one line just vanished into never-never land! (Ah the wonders of modern technology!) I can't be bother reconstructing the thing from memory so I'll let it go at that. Pity.
Dec. 16, 2012, 9:48 p.m. CST
It's really an interlaced vs de-interlaced debate. 50i or 60i footage looks hyper-real, smooth, reality TV, home movie! 24p or 25p (even 30p at a push) look like film - we're used to it (programmed to understand the flickering image as a movie, and smooth as reality) I'm looking forward to seeing HFR Hobbit. But all this debate - for me it's just that 48fps is not 48i (or even 96i) - these are full frames - no interlacing.
Dec. 16, 2012, 9:52 p.m. CST
...to get used to the 48fps--the first few hours, I kept thinking I was watching a soap opera on acid, but by the third hour, I was hooked. Wow!!! The Stone Giants, the underground trolls, the Gollum scene, the battle scenes, Sting glowing blue, and so on and so on... Looking forward to the next two!!!
Dec. 16, 2012, 10:44 p.m. CST
Stupid spell check. Anyway, yes the sequences where you were seeing the actual memories from the machine were in 48 fps back then. But really did not notice a big diff back then too.
Dec. 16, 2012, 10:46 p.m. CST
Had to be less then 2 hours because of the projector platter size. I saw Attack of the Clones in IMAX on film and they edited 12 minutes out to compensate for the 2 hours running time.
Dec. 16, 2012, 10:55 p.m. CST
Before film with sound, theaters had projectionists who hand cranked the projector. When they were going to add sound to movies, the camera manufacturer knew at that point that they needed to motorize cameras and projector to have sound displayed not to fast or not too slow. Also, since they needed to synch the sound to film, they had to decide on one frame rate per second and stick to that as they had to retrofit all of the theaters with this new tech, as well as the cameras shooting the movies. In order to find out what frame rates the new motorized camera would have to be, they sent people out to talk to the projectionists and find out what speed they were turning the cranks at on the projector manually. Since projectionists had to get a rhythm to make the film seem all one speed, they knew how fast they were turning the cranks. After the survey, they found out most projectionists were cranking at 24 FPS as that was rate where the films were looking smooth. Probably because the cameramen cranking the cameras on shooting were also doing 24fps as well. So, since the original camera companies were sewing machine companies as well, and since the motors were the same motors, they programmed them to run cameras and projectors at 24fps. Since they did not want to change anything, that is what the camera companies decided it will remain and it has stayed the same since. It was all to make sure that talkies sounded normal and synched on playback.
Dec. 16, 2012, 11:41 p.m. CST
In Ary we Trust
Dec. 17, 2012, 12:46 a.m. CST
There *was* sound for movies before sound-on-film, which used sound discs and cylinders. @director stan arthur' stated, *24 frames per second was determined to be the very least number of frames per second that was supposedly necessary to create the illusion of realistic motion*, which was what I was responding to (if you scroll-up a re-read it).
Dec. 17, 2012, 12:49 a.m. CST
Dec. 17, 2012, 12:49 a.m. CST
And in researching the reason why I did not notice anything is that MGM balked at the idea when theater owners were told they had to buy more equipment. So Brianstorm was released all 24fps. I distinctly remember the theater I saw it at advertising the showscan process but they said no showscan material is in the film.
Dec. 17, 2012, 12:53 a.m. CST
Dec. 17, 2012, 12:53 a.m. CST
Dec. 17, 2012, 12:53 a.m. CST
Dec. 17, 2012, 3:03 a.m. CST
by That Guy
Until filmmakers finally learned how to master the new technology. The first talkies were awkward and very much stunted cinemagraphically compared to the best silent films. People still bitch about 3D even after all the years it's been around, and it's still only a value-added alternative not the standard (luckily.) A new technology needs a good push to get it out the gate, like Toy Story did for CGI characters or Avatar for modern 3D. Does anyone think this first Hobbit film will do for 48fps what Avatar did for modern 3D? It's already been called Peter Jackson's Phantom Menace. 48fps is not off to a good start.
Dec. 17, 2012, 3:27 a.m. CST
you can take your 48 frames per second technology and shove it up your crystal clear asshole. i don't want or need everything on the screen to be perfectly clear. there's something to be said for mystery; for allowing the audience to use their imagination. to fill in the blurry blanks on their own. i don't go to a night club and say, "gosh darn, i wish they would turn on the house lights so i can see just what kind of a shithole warehouse this is in which i'm dancing the macarena with a hard-on and dried vomit on my collar." no, i pay the seventy five dollar cover for the lights to be kept OFF. and the same goes for the movies. i don't need to see that a set is a set. or that humphrey bogart is wearing lipstick. i already know these things going in. the magic of a movie is how it makes you FORGET. documentaries, nature stuff, sports - applied here, 48 fps (and this goes for HD as well) is an awesome enhancement. otherwise, allow me to pretend.
Dec. 17, 2012, 5:51 a.m. CST
nature vistas and people skydiving etc, not a narrative dramatic presentation like the Hobbit. The demo stuff was shot outdoors and with natural light looked excellent as far as I recall. I wonder if it is less of a HFR issue and more of a cinematography/lighting issue? Perhaps it will take shooters time to figure out how to light HFR properly. I remember when digital cinematography hit the mainstream and many top tier DPs said that they had a learning curve to adapt to the differences between shooting film to now shooting electronically. Perhaps the same is true for HFR? In the 50s there were similar issues when transitioning from 4:3 to wider aspect ratios. Thoughts?
Dec. 17, 2012, 5:55 a.m. CST
Dec. 17, 2012, 6:39 a.m. CST
by Industrious Angel
I think that's really the issue here; The Hobbit "suffers" from similar artistic choices as LotR, especially the over-lighting in dark places (Moria, Shelob's Lair, Bagend). In trying to make everything easy on the eyes they somehow overshot the goal, because our brain KNOWS that in dark places we don't see that sharp and we don't see colours well (if at all) and when we DO see colours and a crisp picture in a cave, it looks "wrong" (like in computer games where many players turn up the gamma correction to have better view). That's a problem not inherent to HFR and not even digital, but simply overlighting and not blurring. Compare the indoor scenes in "Barry Lyndon" for a completely different approach to indoor shooting, and then "The Descent" for yet another approach.
Dec. 17, 2012, 6:48 a.m. CST
Create an "Overture". It will be achieving so much as for a settling in of the eyes on this feast of high frame rate, as well as that classic throw back to the films of the old days. Only this wont be a static image of an Overture, this will be shots of the shire at dawn, with the land just awakening. With the subtle camera movements of very still imagery and increasing in movements as well as general activity in the landscape, our senses can begin to adjust at a calm rate before the movie starts so we can sit back and enjoy the show thoroughly prepped for the experience. I strongly feel this is a great idea...
Dec. 17, 2012, 7:36 a.m. CST
Intriguing idea. I thing the last time I saw an overture in a cinema was during Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet.
Dec. 17, 2012, 8:06 a.m. CST
Cinema is about telling stories. Change that inherently improves the storytelling medium or that enhances the story being told is change to be embraced. Change just because it can be done is fucking idiotic.
Dec. 17, 2012, 8:09 a.m. CST
by Talkbacker with no name
because in both film stock versions of the Hobbit and Lord of the rings on the big screen, you couldn't see shit!
Dec. 17, 2012, 8:31 a.m. CST
I wouldn't though use Avatar for an example of anything since that film has now become strangely forgettable. It's as if no one ever saw it.
Dec. 17, 2012, 8:38 a.m. CST
Dec. 17, 2012, 8:41 a.m. CST
I think all movies should be reduced to one frame forever. No blurring.
Dec. 17, 2012, 8:42 a.m. CST
yeah, that's why everyone is comparing the 3D of Hobbit with the 3D of Avatar. fucking idiot.
Dec. 17, 2012, 9:50 a.m. CST
And it was still 3 hours long! I feel bad for the guys who saw it in 24 fps. I guess it was like a 6 hour movie that way?
Dec. 17, 2012, 9:56 a.m. CST
Who liked the 48fps version and who didn't? and are you left or right handed? Wonder if it's a left / right brain thing?
Dec. 17, 2012, 10:12 a.m. CST
No one speaks of Avatar as a movie anymore worth seeing. They only talk about it on a technical level, and no one gives a flying shit about the movie anyway. Can't blame them, it was crap to begin with, people were just distracted by the pretty colors.
Dec. 17, 2012, 10:18 a.m. CST
I was a bit iffy on him when he was doing the horror movie a day thing, but he improved drastically. Now I like what he has to say even when I disagree. I would have a beer with Ary and talk film.
Dec. 17, 2012, 10:40 a.m. CST
by Talkbacker with no name
His sexy silky smooth voice is to die for.
Dec. 17, 2012, 10:45 a.m. CST
I'm talking about everyone else....the film has fallen off the radar. Chalk it up to dummies being easily distracted, but its still so very forgettable despite it earning so much... I don't know anyone who loved it, plenty who liked it, but NONE who thought it was beyond it's clever gimmick. For me, I have no reason to revisit it.
Dec. 17, 2012, 10:56 a.m. CST
I live new tech- HD, retina displays, etc. I can't stand HFR. Saw it in 48 fps and hated it. Looked like I was watching a made-for-PBS special. Also, I'm left handed.
Dec. 17, 2012, 11:41 a.m. CST
by MISTER RUMBLES
should be the way to go. Accent the important 3D moments and leave the other shit alone. The only reason you want the frame rate higher that 24 fps is to reduce the motion blur which makes the 3D look better.
Dec. 17, 2012, 12:19 p.m. CST
If 48fps works for certain scenes than use it for certain scenes, but if the rest of the movie suffers because you have to get "used to it" then something is wrong. And, honestly, 3D is a moneymaking fraud -- our eyes already give us the illusion of depth when we used to see light projected on a 2D silver screen through celluloid film, so the current fad is just another distraction from lack of proper storytelling. In real life, if we see an action scene, guess what, we might not notice every single detail -- does every movie need to be high-definition crystal clear? Use the technology to tell the story, don't abandon the story and audience's suspension of disbelief for the sake of making money off the new technology.
Dec. 17, 2012, 1:07 p.m. CST
I saw the movie in HFR yesterday. Sometimes it looked great and other times it looked horrible. My biggest issue is that I think the "Look" of HFR is completely wrong for this type of movie. I think that type of clarity works for something contemporary and gritty, or sci fi and futuristic. But considering the source material and the previous LOTR trilogy, blurry, dreamy, mystical sounds just about right. Also, since we are dealing with a format that makes a ton of makeup, set and special effect flaws pop out, maybe the techniques and procedures in makeup, set design and special effects aren't yet ready for 48 fps.
Dec. 17, 2012, 2:14 p.m. CST
Dec. 17, 2012, 6:02 p.m. CST
by Mosquito March
I just walked out of the HFR 3D HOBBIT. It's an interesting experiment, but I don't see it as an improvement on traditional 24fps in any way, and I'm stunned that any fans of cinematography feel that it's aesthetically superior to, say, BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI or RAGING BULL or THERE WILL BE BLOOD. I think with each big budget effort, Jackson becomes more of a videogame maker than a filmmaker. I understand that a lot of younger eyes might see the appeal of it in the age of Call Of Duty, but is this right for movies? Would APOCALYPSE NOW or RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK be better movies if they'd been made this way? I really don't think so.
Dec. 17, 2012, 6:36 p.m. CST
So I went to see the film today, this time not in an IMAX theater but in a 3D HFR regular screening (I figured, a 2D showing was only 30 mins later. If I had the same problems as before, I'd just leave and go to that viewing) but ended up working PERFECTLY. The film is so gorgeous in 48fps. It's not that the 3D is any better, it's just that the images are so crisp and clear. At least in my opinion. If they'd film a man walking across a stage and told someone to walk into the theater with the glasses on, it'd be like you were looking at a person on the stage. Just crisp. I also found out what was wrong the first time: the lenses in the glasses were backwards. Since I'd seen the first 45 minutes of the film already, after I realized it was working perfectly, I just started to see what would happen if I turned the glasses around. BOOM, instant craziness and inability to focus, ghosted effects, etc. Maybe it was my glasses during that first IMAX screening, or maybe the projectors were reversed. The glasses I remember being oddly constructed, the arms snapped into the front "plate" of the glasses themselves, which had a uniform look. So it's a possibility that they were simply constructed upside down. But since my GF had the same problems, I'd like to think it was the projector(s) being played in the wrong side. Glad I finally got to see the film, glad I saw it in 48FPS, and loved every minute of it. It isn't a flawless film, but it is definitely one I wouldn't mind going to see again.
Dec. 17, 2012, 6:36 p.m. CST
I keep hearing that the issue with 48fps is that it looks so much like reality that our brains can't adjust. Uhhhhhhm, I live in reality. It doesn't require any viewing adjustment. Also, many of my earliest tv/film memories were of how much I hated the soap opera / sitcom look of some shows. It was many years before I understood the technical difference, but it was the depressing flatness I objected to, before I was ever exposed to much film or TV.
Dec. 17, 2012, 7:01 p.m. CST
Yeah, it sucks. It looks like a shitty european soap opera. This is one of those trends that will hopefully die off, before it's adopted by too many others. I can't watch HFR flicks... It literally takes me out of the movie. It's like watching student films, but with better acting and bigger budgets. The people who like this look, can have it. I hate it.
Dec. 17, 2012, 8:43 p.m. CST
Dec. 18, 2012, 12:09 a.m. CST
Dec. 18, 2012, 1:11 a.m. CST
Just watched "The Hobbit" in 48 frames per second. NOT A FAN. I will say that it made the 3-D have a completely non-flutter effect that I loved, but that didn't make up for the "BBC Tele-drama" type feel the film had. The scenes felt long and dragged out. Something tells me the film should have only been one complete movie in the same vain that there is only one book. By stretching the film out to be another trilogy feels contrived and just to make money. I urge everyone to watch the film in regular 2-D at 24 frames per second. I may go back again to watch it in that format to see if the film works better for me. I just don't know if the 48fps is fully realized yet....it just doesn't look like film at all. I could have cut 20 minutes out of the film for sure.
Dec. 18, 2012, 3:34 a.m. CST
http://movieline.com/2012/12/14/hobbit-high-frame-rate-science-48-frames-per-second/ What it doesn't mention is that at 24FPS, film has done a lot of work for you by recording the natural blur of human vision, which your brain accepts as normal in a mostly dark space.
Dec. 18, 2012, 12:01 p.m. CST
...let me restate my thoughts. Initially, I was rather startled by the look, of how unlike other 3-D movies or films I had seen that it looked. My brain was balking at it. And then it just clicked, and I really no longer had a problem: This wasn't film, this was its own medium, akin to, though not completely like what I'd seen in movies shown on HFR televisions. Now, I'm not a big fan of those, they strike me as too super smooth, and more to the point, they don't look like the original movie. But here, it occured to me, that was the format. This was a HFR Digital 3-D movie, made that way. So, I stopped thinking of it as some variation on film, and simply regarded it as its own medium. After that, I didn't really have a problem. But I think that's worth keeping in mind. This is so unlike film that if you want to create a movie that is more film-like, you'll either have to do a shit-ton of work, or you'll have to forego 48 fps. There is a difference. How it plays out depends on how they deal with the various issues. I do think softer edges would help to take some of the artificiality out of it.
Dec. 18, 2012, 3:28 p.m. CST
I'm a 35 year old who has been going to movies and collecting them for 18 years now. I'm also incredibly open minded, so perhaps that has something to do with my opinions. But I've never seen such beauty on a screen before. The colors, the frame rate, the proper usage of 3D...I was transported to another world, and I PRAY that this technology is the future. It's so advanced compared to anything I've ever seen. The movie itself left much to be desired, but visually? Words can't describe how wonderful it is. I can't understand detractors whining about how 'fake' it looks. IT'S A FANTASY FILM.......... The amazing quality of the visual experience must be so good that some people (Because they either reject change, or are hard headed traditionalists) must fight it out of spite and would of rejected the tech regardless of seeing it or not. You went into the film with preconceived ideas of how it would be, and you let your brain go that route. I had no issues with the 3D, or adjusting the frame rate. All I did was gape open mouthed at the future of cinema, while a lot of you ignored the revolution at your doorstep.
Dec. 18, 2012, 4:58 p.m. CST
Dec. 18, 2012, 5:52 p.m. CST
I have no idea what you're talking about. Bad attitude? Because I don't comprehend the 'hating' on a format that for all intents and purposes was just birthed into the mainstream? Seriously? If you read some of the negative comments, many of which are being made by people who HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN THE MOVIE! you will see that many are being, as you say, judgmental against something they don't even fully understand. My entire post was trying to explain that if you look upon the tech with an open mind, you can see (with just a tad bit of imagination) where this medium can take film in the future. If you took offense to my witty writing, then poo on you.
Dec. 18, 2012, 6:24 p.m. CST
I'm STILL trying to figure whey everyone was wetting their little jeans over HD. Granted , It looks nice - but to justify a planet of new Tv's and all that entails ? I was actually expecting... SOMETHING ..............Its Laughable. And amazingly entertaining to stand around listening to people pat themselves on the back endlessly over the "Awesome Technical Achievements of Mankind". Breathlessly explaining why THIS is SO much better than THAT was ! No one is gonna be around to hear the laughing decades / Millenia from now over what we thought was good. The amateur -Hour quality of what we've accomplished. Remember when McCoy said "My God man ,you don't drill a hole in a Man's head" ?
Dec. 18, 2012, 6:31 p.m. CST
"Gawd, Harry is an ugly lump of a man by big_bad_wolf_in_caps " What exactly does it do for you, as a (so-called) human to say something like that to another person? Why? Why would you try to intentionally hurt someone else you probably don't even know. Even if you did ? What justifies that kind of ugliness ? Has Harry actually done something so terrible to you personally ? What's next - a Midnight Movie with Black Body Armor for you ?
Dec. 18, 2012, 6:39 p.m. CST
Dec. 18, 2012, 11:10 p.m. CST
by eric haislar
I just got back from seeing the film. 5 mins in I wish I saw it in 24fps. The magic of film is gone. It looks fake and like a video game. I never want to see another film this way again. That saying the 3d looked great this way. But it loses the soul of film. Liked the movie alot. But 48fps, never again.
Dec. 18, 2012, 11:21 p.m. CST
... though I'm holding off sealing the envelope on that until someone tests a 24FPS 3-D move through the upgraded-to-48FPS projectors. I was getting eyestrain with HFR, so I took my glasses off a few times, and the screen was drastically brighter than any 3-D movie I've ever seen. Pumping out the frames faster with increased brightness might actually be a solution for some *normal* 24FPS 3-D problems (i.e., inexpensively printing each frame twice to play *normally* at 48FPS). I think that should DEFINITELY be tested out on the upgraded projectors.
Dec. 19, 2012, 7:37 a.m. CST
enjoyed the experience but some of the sets looked fake, and some of the cg characters (goblin king) looked like cg from 10 years ago not cutting edge stuff id expect from weta - although you could see they spent a lot of time getting the riddles in the dark scene right as this portrayal of gollum was the best yet!! However i like to have my disbelief suspended by film so i think ill see the next two in 2d24
Dec. 19, 2012, 11:58 a.m. CST
Dec. 19, 2012, 4:52 p.m. CST
Dec. 19, 2012, 6:46 p.m. CST
This technology, or at least the look of this technology, is not brand new. Go look at any HD TV with the increased frame-rate or "Smoothing" feature. This is one of those issues where its all about preference, not fact. A lot of people prefer their films to look like film, not video. To get an idea of what we (the "haters") are talking about, go watch a few early episodes of the Twilight Zone, back when they shot it on film, then check out the later episodes when they switched to video... There's just somwething off about the way it looks and for a lot of people, that can really take away the cinematic experience. You can throw all the gimics you want at film-going audiences, be it 3D, HFR, moving seats, etc... but nothing is going to bring someone into the movie without a great story. I'm 33 and been into films since birth and even graduated from film school, before going off and becoming a filmmaker myself, and I can honestly say that HFR just looks horrible to me. I don't want to feel like I'm on set while watching a movie, especially one that is supposed to sweep me off to another realm.