The Hobbit- attendees shunned Peter Jackson 48fps footage

spoig · 04-25-12 at 10:21 PM

I'm not a fan of that ultra-smooth, TV style frame rate either. I love the detail of the RED cameras, but this new frame rate thing takes allot of the magic away - things look a bit strange and that 'film' feel and cinematic flow is lost.

The only way I see this working is to give people the option to view the film at the normal 24/25/29.7 fps.

Cabbage.

**Xanth1942** · 04-25-12 at 11:04 PM

A lot of the comments are interesting and I picked up a few things, cheers :)

As for the movie...just like LOTR, The Hobbits been a long time coming and I'm looking forward to seeing what Jackson has done with this one.

**Cheesaw** · 04-25-12 at 11:28 PM

I have "smooth motion" on my projector, which is to say that it runs at 120Hz (as opposed to 60Hz) and I don't like it. I certainly know what they mean when they say it's like watching a soap opera on TV. I turned the feature off.

That being said, it might be good if the entire movie industry moves to a higher frame-rate. I know eventually I'd get used to it. Maybe I should turn it back on on my projector in preparation!

shoguns · 04-26-12 at 12:49 AM

never seen any movie at more than 24fps so i'll have to save judgement for when i do.

if anyone has some type of comparison video that shows this too smooth thing your talking about i'd like to see it.

voodu · 04-26-12 at 02:16 AM

Quote: Originally Posted by spoig

The only way I see this working is to give people the option to view the film at the normal 24/25/29.7 fps.

Yes that's why it is shot at 48fps, because it is a clean multiple of 24fps. So very easy to convert to 24fps, they just drop every second frame.

The problem with that is that the resulting 24fps footage does not have as much motion blur as a normal 24fps movie shot with 180deg shutter angle. So it will look kind of stuttery, like the beach sequences on Saving Private Ryan. Probably they just add some digital motion blur.

But anyway, yes it will be possible to watch this movie at 24fps. Many cinemas will show it at 24fps and of course Bluray doesnt even support 48fps so they will have to go with the 24fps version. The question is just whether it looks like a normal 24fps film after they do the conversion. Time will tell.

**blaxroze** · 04-26-12 at 02:34 AM

As a gamer saying you dont like it in 48fps is a bullshit. Its like saying 60fps sucks,play it in 30fps more realistic/dramatic. Get over it people, I'm excited with its 48fps instead of 24fps but I do read somewhere that cinema can show it in 24fps instead of 48fps and the problem is i want to watch it in 48fps. Just hoping they will put fps tag on its poster. So I wont ruin my first Hobbit in low fps

lazysod · 04-26-12 at 04:04 AM

The real truth is that 24fps or 48fps or not, The Hobbit is a piece of shit that will suck. You can sleep watching the trailer, WTF?

mymythos · 04-26-12 at 06:05 AM

I miss the time when films looked like films, when they were actually shot on FILM. Nowadays it's all about "more", in every aspect of human society and the movie industry is no exception. It's more speed, more realism. More isn't necessarily better. Many times it's the other way around.

**shonymat** · 05-02-12 at 04:23 PM

This also possible for The Hobbit:

Go to any movie theater in America, and there's a good chance you'll be hearing the film's soundtrack in glorious 5.1 (or maybe 6.1, or even 7.2!) surround sound. Maybe it's Dolby Digital, maybe it's DTS, maybe it's even THX certified. Whatever. Five (or six, or seven) channels of sound will is so passé. But what about 64 channels of sound?

That's the concept behind Dolby's new Atmos system, wherein speakers would be placed all along the theater's walls, and its ceiling, transmitting up to 64 unique bands of audio, creating a completely immersive, almost three-dimensional sound scape. Close your eyes, and you might still be able to hear how the characters relate to each other in physical space. Hear the crunch of gravel underfoot, behind you, the ominous rumble of an approaching train in front of you on the left. Oh, and then there's that airplane flying overhead. Or something. Intrigued?

Peter Jackson apparently is. According to the Hollywood Reporter, Jackson will soon be entertaining some folks from Dolby on the New Zealand set of "The Hobbit." If their presentation is compelling enough, Jackson could add another first to "The Hobbit's" list of accomplishments; it is, or rather, will be, the first film to be displayed at 48 frames per-second, supposedly giving audiences a more realistic viewing experience. (Although some critics have complained that the effect is too realistic, but that's another story...)

Code: Select All

http://social.entertainment.msn.com/movies/blogs/the-hitlist-blog.aspx?feat=4f2febca-79f2-4234-bd1a-90ad16b15671

**Scyence** · 05-02-12 at 04:56 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by kolewan

After watching TV on a 240hz TV I felt much the same way. Everything moved "too" fluidly, it felt like I was watching a soap opera. However, the more I watched the TV the more accustomed I became to the higher refresh rate. Now I don't even notice it.

True that, I've experienced the same thing.

Definitely looking forward to this movie, I loved the book

**usiel** · 05-02-12 at 05:21 PM

Eh, I'm personally a little meh about Peter Jackson doing this movie. I mean he's already done 3 of them. To me it's like the same movie. I would have loved to see someone elses interpretation of the Hobbit. It kind of feels like Peter Jackson is a one trick pony because what else is memorable? King Kong I believe is all I remember. Hell King Kong and Lovely Bones is all he's done since the Lord of the Rings series.

05-02-12 at 04:23 PM	#23
shonymat Elder Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 2,993	This also possible for The Hobbit: Go to any movie theater in America, and there's a good chance you'll be hearing the film's soundtrack in glorious 5.1 (or maybe 6.1, or even 7.2!) surround sound. Maybe it's Dolby Digital, maybe it's DTS, maybe it's even THX certified. Whatever. Five (or six, or seven) channels of sound will is so passé. But what about 64 channels of sound? That's the concept behind Dolby's new Atmos system, wherein speakers would be placed all along the theater's walls, and its ceiling, transmitting up to 64 unique bands of audio, creating a completely immersive, almost three-dimensional sound scape. Close your eyes, and you might still be able to hear how the characters relate to each other in physical space. Hear the crunch of gravel underfoot, behind you, the ominous rumble of an approaching train in front of you on the left. Oh, and then there's that airplane flying overhead. Or something. Intrigued? Peter Jackson apparently is. According to the Hollywood Reporter, Jackson will soon be entertaining some folks from Dolby on the New Zealand set of "The Hobbit." If their presentation is compelling enough, Jackson could add another first to "The Hobbit's" list of accomplishments; it is, or rather, will be, the first film to be displayed at 48 frames per-second, supposedly giving audiences a more realistic viewing experience. (Although some critics have complained that the effect is too realistic, but that's another story...) Code: Select All http://social.entertainment.msn.com/movies/blogs/the-hitlist-blog.aspx?feat=4f2febca-79f2-4234-bd1a-90ad16b15671

04-25-12 at 10:21 PM	#15
spoig Newcomer Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 1	I'm not a fan of that ultra-smooth, TV style frame rate either. I love the detail of the RED cameras, but this new frame rate thing takes allot of the magic away - things look a bit strange and that 'film' feel and cinematic flow is lost. The only way I see this working is to give people the option to view the film at the normal 24/25/29.7 fps. Cabbage.

04-25-12 at 11:04 PM	#16
Xanth1942 Expert Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Land of OZ Posts: 675	A lot of the comments are interesting and I picked up a few things, cheers :) As for the movie...just like LOTR, The Hobbits been a long time coming and I'm looking forward to seeing what Jackson has done with this one.

04-25-12 at 11:28 PM	#17
Cheesaw Newcomer Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 53	I have "smooth motion" on my projector, which is to say that it runs at 120Hz (as opposed to 60Hz) and I don't like it. I certainly know what they mean when they say it's like watching a soap opera on TV. I turned the feature off. That being said, it might be good if the entire movie industry moves to a higher frame-rate. I know eventually I'd get used to it. Maybe I should turn it back on on my projector in preparation!

04-26-12 at 12:49 AM	#18
shoguns Apprentice Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 414	never seen any movie at more than 24fps so i'll have to save judgement for when i do. if anyone has some type of comparison video that shows this too smooth thing your talking about i'd like to see it.

04-26-12 at 02:16 AM	#19
voodu Apprentice Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 317	Quote: Originally Posted by spoig The only way I see this working is to give people the option to view the film at the normal 24/25/29.7 fps. Yes that's why it is shot at 48fps, because it is a clean multiple of 24fps. So very easy to convert to 24fps, they just drop every second frame. The problem with that is that the resulting 24fps footage does not have as much motion blur as a normal 24fps movie shot with 180deg shutter angle. So it will look kind of stuttery, like the beach sequences on Saving Private Ryan. Probably they just add some digital motion blur. But anyway, yes it will be possible to watch this movie at 24fps. Many cinemas will show it at 24fps and of course Bluray doesnt even support 48fps so they will have to go with the 24fps version. The question is just whether it looks like a normal 24fps film after they do the conversion. Time will tell.

04-26-12 at 02:34 AM	#20
blaxroze Expert Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 959	As a gamer saying you dont like it in 48fps is a bullshit. Its like saying 60fps sucks,play it in 30fps more realistic/dramatic. Get over it people, I'm excited with its 48fps instead of 24fps but I do read somewhere that cinema can show it in 24fps instead of 48fps and the problem is i want to watch it in 48fps. Just hoping they will put fps tag on its poster. So I wont ruin my first Hobbit in low fps

04-26-12 at 04:04 AM	#21
lazysod Expert Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 533	The real truth is that 24fps or 48fps or not, The Hobbit is a piece of shit that will suck. You can sleep watching the trailer, WTF?

04-26-12 at 06:05 AM	#22
mymythos Novice Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 202	I miss the time when films looked like films, when they were actually shot on FILM. Nowadays it's all about "more", in every aspect of human society and the movie industry is no exception. It's more speed, more realism. More isn't necessarily better. Many times it's the other way around.

05-02-12 at 04:56 PM	#24
Scyence 聖哭螳螂 Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 261	Quote: Originally Posted by kolewan After watching TV on a 240hz TV I felt much the same way. Everything moved "too" fluidly, it felt like I was watching a soap opera. However, the more I watched the TV the more accustomed I became to the higher refresh rate. Now I don't even notice it. True that, I've experienced the same thing. Definitely looking forward to this movie, I loved the book

05-02-12 at 05:21 PM	#25
usiel Master Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 1,153	Eh, I'm personally a little meh about Peter Jackson doing this movie. I mean he's already done 3 of them. To me it's like the same movie. I would have loved to see someone elses interpretation of the Hobbit. It kind of feels like Peter Jackson is a one trick pony because what else is memorable? King Kong I believe is all I remember. Hell King Kong and Lovely Bones is all he's done since the Lord of the Rings series.