The Official "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" movie thread *SPOILERS*

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread

Kamandi beat me too it.

I'm a bit worried about the 48 fps. Every HD demo I've ever seen with frame rates that high looks like video.(and not in a good way)

It resembled every godawful LCD HDtv I've ever seen where the frame smoothing is turned on to hide the 60hz refresh. Makes big budget films look like soap operas.

I hate anti-judder tech more than words can express.



Every major film since the invention of soundtracks is 24 fps. This frame rate was established in the 1930's to accommodate the analog and later optical sound information hidden to the side of each frame of film. Because of this films have a certain aesthetic when it comes to the blurs and softness of image during action.

Higher frame rates smooth all of that out but things start to look like they were shot for TV or even worse a video game on a high end PC.

Exactly. Do we really want this to look like BBC television or a morning talk show?
 
Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread

Can't wait to see the 48 fps. I have 1,000 times more faith in Peter Jackson than any assumptions on a collecting forum that the picture will look anything less than spectacular. Bring it on.
 
Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread

Right there isnt a director I trust more out there than Jackson to make sure it all works.
 
Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread

The image will undoubtedly look gorgeous and the high frame rate will make the motions very smooth. It will look more "natural" and "lifelike" which worries people that it will make the film look like a Soap Opera or BBC TV show... though with much higher production values.

*Original Announcement of Filming in 48fps by Peter Jackson

We are indeed shooting at the higher frame rate. The key thing to understand is that this process requires both shooting and projecting at 48 fps, rather than the usual 24 fps (films have been shot at 24 frames per second since the late 1920′s). So the result looks like normal speed, but the image has hugely enhanced clarity and smoothness. Looking at 24 frames every second may seem ok–and we’ve all seen thousands of films like this over the last 90 years–but there is often quite a lot of blur in each frame, during fast movements, and if the camera is moving around quickly, the image can judder or “strobe.”

Shooting and projecting at 48 fps does a lot to get rid of these issues. It looks much more lifelike, and it is much easier to watch, especially in 3-D. We’ve been watching HOBBIT tests and dailies at 48 fps now for several months, and we often sit through two hours worth of footage without getting any eye strain from the 3-D. It looks great, and we’ve actually become used to it now, to the point that other film experiences look a little primitive. I saw a new movie in the cinema on Sunday and I kept getting distracted by the juddery panning and blurring.
*Peter Jackson Explaining why they're Filming in 48fps

The news about us filming The Hobbit at 48 frames per second generated a lot of comments. Of course, it’s impossible to show you what 48 fps actually looks like outside of a movie cinema, but there were several interesting and insightful questions raised.

We will be completing a “normal” 24 frames per second version—in both digital and 35mm film prints. If we are able to get the Hobbit projected at 48 fps in selected cinemas, there will still be normal-looking 24 fps versions available in cinemas everywhere.

Converting a film shot at 48 fps down to 24 fps is not a hugely difficult process, but it requires testing to achieve the best results. Some of this involves digital processes during post-production. We are also shooting the film a slightly different way, which is a question several of you asked. Normally you shoot a movie with a 180-degree shutter angle. Changing the shutter angle affects the amount of motion blur captured during movement. Reducing the shutter angle gives you the stroby (or jerky) “Saving Private Ryan” look.

However, we’re going the other way, shooting at 48 fps with a 270 degree shutter angle. This gives the 48 fps a lovely silky look, and creates a very pleasing look at 24 fps as well. In fact, our DP, Andrew Lesnie, and I prefer the look of 24 fps when it comes from a 48 fps master.
I think it's going to turn out fine.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread

The image will undoubtedly look gorgeous and the high frame rate will make the motions very smooth. It will look more "natural" and "lifelike" which worries people that it will make the film look like a Soap Opera or BBC TV show... though with much higher production values.

*Original Announcement of Filming in 48fps by Peter Jackson

*Peter Jackson Explaining why they're Filming in 48fps

I think it's going to turn out fine.



Translation: It will look like it was shot on a super high resolution version of your dads old camcorder.
 
Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread

Can't wait to see the 48 fps. I have 1,000 times more faith in Peter Jackson than any assumptions on a collecting forum that the picture will look anything less than spectacular. Bring it on.

I am not a movie director or an expert on anything but I have researched the subject of frame rate to an excess (It was part of HDTV research. I ended up buying a Pioneer because it has the ability to run 24 FPS without relying on telecine.).


Have you ever watched any live T.V.? David Letterman? Jay Leno? Football? The News?

That's all shot at 60 FPS. (This is video -read: fancy camcorder- not film. It's the same kind of cameras that Soap Operas use.)

Films are shot at 24 FPS.

To bump up the frame rate to 48 FPS brings it damn close to Live TV speed. For me, the initial reaction will not be "wow it looks so real!" it will be "wow, it looks so cheap!"

I am fully aware that this is, in large part, due to conditioning. We are used to associating the high frame rates either soap operas or live TV. That's why I hate anti judder technology in HDTVs. This is done with motion interpolation, which means that the TV adds intermediate frames between the frames. So 24 FPS becomes... 48 frames per second. I can't stand the way this looks.






Okay, now that I have that rant out of my system: I understand the benefits of higher frame rates (see the quotes in Sachiel's post). It may be that I will be able to adjust to it at some point if it becomes a new standard. However, I foresee that being very very controversial in the film community. Most movies benefit from 24 FPS precisely because of its limitations. It conceals imperfections in special effects, costumes, and set design. It's part of "movie magic". And I believe it adds an artistic quality to film that higher frame rates spoil.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread

To bump up the frame rate to 48 FPS brings it damn close to Live TV speed. For me, the initial reaction will not be "wow it looks so real!" it will be "wow, it looks so cheap!"

I'm not sure where you are, but TV down here is 25 FPS (PAL). Shooting at 48 should just mean that pans and fast action doesn't have the blurring/tearing that you get at 24 FPS.
 
Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread

I do agree with you Maglor. Higher frame rate makes anything moving look so smooth that it gives the rest of the "world" a dead feeling. Or, in other words, makes it look "cheap". That's my problem with it anyways...

I still have faith though. :monkey5
 
Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread

No Boromir in your sig? I'm disappointed Josh.
 
Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread

I do agree with you Maglor. Higher frame rate makes anything moving look so smooth that it gives the rest of the "world" a dead feeling. Or, in other words, makes it look "cheap". That's my problem with it anyways...

:exactly:


I still have faith though. :monkey5

I'm trying...


I will say this, I plan on seeing it in 3D (which I also dislike) with the full 48 fps for this reason: I believe that "director's intent" is a sacred thing. For example, because I believe in director's intent, I have always hated "full frame" edits of movies. I want the original aspect ratio that the director chose. I'd rather have black bars on the top and bottom of the screen than have the sides chopped off. Respect for directors intent is also part of the reason I would never use a motion interpolation on my TV. It adds frames where the director never put them.

So, by extension, if PJ wants to double the frames, I will force myself to watch it this way, and try to like it. But I will most likely also see it in a theater that is showing it at 24 fps. And I may never prefer the 48 fps.

Another example of directors intent is The Dark Knight. It was shot partly in IMAX which had a different aspect ratio than the stuff that was shot on standard film. That means that throughout the movie (if you have the bluray) the aspect ratio changes. The black bars appear and disappear. I find this distracting, and I personally think it was a bad choice to use such wide film for the non-IMAX stuff. I think the movie suffers for it. I wish Christopher Nolan had chosen a film that was closer to IMAX ratio. But I still watch the bluray version which preserves directors intent. And to be clear, Nolan is in my top 3 favorite directors. I just don't agree with his choice in this matter.



Bottom line: I have tremendous respect for Peter Jackson, and will watch the film with an open mind as best I can. But just because he is one of the great directors, there is no assurance that I will like the 48fps.


This is a personal thing. Some people love anti-judder technology/motion interpolation. I can't comprehend that, but it is what it is. :peace
 
Last edited:
Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread

as none of us have seen a 3D film at 48 fps, and I know it's not always the popular thing, but maybe we should wait to evaluate until after we've seen something to begin hating/loving it? :dunno
 
Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread

No Boromir in your sig? I'm disappointed Josh.

Yeah, he wasnt in the image I sent and it was really difficult to cram all that in. The Entity did an amazing job on the sig though. Next time I'll try to get Boromir in there.
 
Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread

@Maglor's post - :exactly:


as none of us have seen a 3D film at 48 fps, and I know it's not always the popular thing, but maybe we should wait to evaluate until after we've seen something to begin hating/loving it? :dunno

I haven't said I'll hate The Hobbit. I said every example I've seen of 60fps makes me concerned about this decision.

But for the same reasons Maglor mentioned about Director's Intent I will see The Hobbit in a theater with 3d 48fps at least once.
 
Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread

I think this is a lot of worry over something that won't be an issue. I trust Jackson and his judgement over a few naysayers. He's got a few Oscars and success behind him.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread

I noticed an odd effect on one of the trilogy movies I watched on DVD. I thought it may have been the (new) TV but the characters seemed too realistic in their movements, hard to describe, almost like they were floating or moon walking. I suppose this couldn't be the same issue (48fps), or could it? I don't follow the technical aspects of this stuff at all.
 
Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread

as none of us have seen a 3D film at 48 fps, and I know it's not always the popular thing, but maybe we should wait to evaluate until after we've seen something to begin hating/loving it? :dunno

I haven't said I'll hate The Hobbit. I said every example I've seen of 60fps makes me concerned about this decision.

But for the same reasons Maglor mentioned about Director's Intent I will see The Hobbit in a theater with 3d 48fps at least once.

Yep. I didn't say I would hate the film either. In fact I have every expectation that it will be incredible in terms of story, character interpretation, cinematography, special effects, etc., etc. I expect it to move me to tears more than once.

That doesn't mean I have to love the prospect of doubling the frame rate over every movie I have ever seen in my 34 years - every film ever made in the history of film.

Guys this will look different. I don't mean the sharpness, the color, the framing. I mean it will move unlike any movie you have ever loved.



I think this is a lot of worry over something that won't be an issue. I trust Jackson and his judgement over a few naysayers. He's got a few Oscars and success behind him.

As I said. the greatness of the director is no reason to assume I will agree with every choice he makes. Some may love the 48 fps. Heck I may love the 48 fps. But for the time being I am highly skeptical.

Let me ask you this: have you ever seen the motion interpolation I have been talking about? Have you ever been walking through a Best Buy and one of the HDTV panels catches your eye because the way it moves sticks out as being different from the others. Way more fluid. Did you notice that there was something familiar about it?

It looked like Live TV. Like someone had 'opened up the screen and you were looking into real life' (as PJ said in the latest video). Did you like that effect? Many do. If you did, then you should expect to love the 48 fps.



I noticed an odd effect on one of the trilogy movies I watched on DVD. I thought it may have been the (new) TV but the characters seemed too realistic in their movements, hard to describe, almost like they were floating or moon walking. I suppose this couldn't be the same issue (48fps), or could it? I don't follow the technical aspects of this stuff at all.


It was the TV.

You have a 120 or 240 hz LCD right?
 
Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread

Here's an article that might shed a little light on what I'm talking about. It's the first search I have done on the subject. I swear every word I have said so far has been out of my own head, and expresses my personal concerns. However, as I suspected, I'm not the only one.


https://insidemovies.ew.com/2011/04/12/the-hobbit-48-frames-peter-jackson/

According to Jackson, a higher frame-rate gets “rid of these issues” and makes the image “much more lifelike.” Many film buffs and cinema purists, however, have argued that those “issues” are what make film film — much like a painting carries a different visual quality than a still photograph, the blurring effect of 24 frames-per-second is what gives movies their otherworldly, dream-like quality. Video looks different in part because it has a higher frame rate (30 frames per second) — click here for a terrific and simple visual demonstration of what happens when something is presented at a higher frame rate.


Here is the link that the article gives for a demonstration of fast vs. slower frame rate. If you've been wondering what I'm concerned about please watch it.

https://www.boallen.com/fps-compare.html

Traditional film (since the 20s) is somewhere between the first and second example. 48fps is somewhere between the second and third example.
 
Back
Top