The Hobbit

Anthony Schilling · June 11, 2012

It seems "The Hobbit" was shot on a new HD 48fps format and the results are not pretty. I saw the trailer and the reviews are accurate in saying that it looks like an HD version of a 1970's BBC made for TV movie shot on video. "The sets look like sets" and "it has no cinematic quality". Maybe HD cinema has peaked and already taking a dive in it's evolution?

dan kessler · June 11, 2012

All the old issues again.

Even as a little kid I never liked TV soaps because they looked "too real."

Movies (film) always looked better.

Paul Bartok · June 11, 2012

I do agree film is film 24fps magic. It's the movement at 24fps that creates the illusion of disbelief, But I think people like jc are tryin to push for this ultra real experience.

I heard the 70mm 48fps looks amazing. Can't say from for myself tho

Chris Millar · June 11, 2012

Well I'm not sure what 'version' of the Hobbit trailer I was watching before Prometheus. It was an IMAX cinema and was in 3D. Not sure if it was 48fps though. Anyhoo, wasn't pleasant but I was more concerned with the 3D making me feel crosseyed than any soap opera effect. I'll probably go 2D, maybe it'll be fused to 24fps for that ?

Chris Millar · June 12, 2012

Yeh but it'll be made up of a weird composite of fused 'half frames'. Not sure what the characteristic artifact is, maybe nothing too bad.

David Mullen ASC · June 12, 2012

Since they shot the movie with a 270 degree shutter angle at 48 fps, just dropping every other frame would work fine -- it would look exactly like they had shot at 24 fps with a 135 degree shutter angle, which is not that odd considering people often shoot between 90 degrees and 180 degrees on film, particularly for an action movie. There would only be frame blending involved if they wanted more motion blur for some reason.

June 12, 2012

It seems "The Hobbit" was shot on a new HD 48fps format and the results are not pretty. I saw the trailer and the reviews are accurate in saying that it looks like an HD version of a 1970's BBC made for TV movie shot on video. "The sets look like sets" and "it has no cinematic quality". Maybe HD cinema has peaked and already taking a dive in it's evolution?

Aren't these comments now considered to be sacrilege in 2012?

R,

Freya Black · June 12, 2012

I've seen the trailer for the Hobbit on the internet, probably that is at 24fps and it is in 2d.

I was not really impressed.

I thought it looked okay. Nothing that special visually.

The LOTR films were VERY impressive visually.

I'm sure the movie will be okay it has some good actors in it but I'm not really excited about it.

The 48fps is a non issue for me as I'm not at all interested in seeing it in 3d anyway.

However, I think I'll be giving it a miss in 2d as well.

Might catch it on TV someday.

Mark Dunn · June 12, 2012

You can always watch a classic film print or

Not at my local cinema or anywhere that will tell you they're showing film, you can't.

Now MGM won't even tell the Prince Charles in Leicester Square whether or not they'll be supplied with a print of 2001, for heaven's sake.

Chris Millar · June 12, 2012

Since they shot the movie with a 270 degree shutter angle at 48 fps, just dropping every other frame would work fine.

Ah, ok - I think I already knew this also and had forgotten - seeing how close the angle is to the Bolex standard triggered the memory :D

So in 48fps (2x shutters for 96 'strobes' still?) it'd have a 270deg. I'm guessing this is visually connected to the higher frame rate, it just looks right or ?

David Mullen ASC · June 12, 2012

Well, I'm sure using a 270 degree shutter at 48 fps helped compensate a little for the light loss of both the higher frame rate and the 3D mirror rigs. Personally I think keeping to a 180 degree shutter looks better when you can because smearier motion, especially during fast action, makes things look slightly more "video-ish" (since traditional 60i video often was shot with no shutter at 1/60). Although I use 270 degrees myself in low-light scenes where there isn't a lot of movement. It's not a dramatic difference between 180 and 270 but 180 is closer to a "film look".

But then when you convert 48 fps to 24 fps by dropping every other frame, if you had used a 180 degree shutter, it would look like you had used a 90 degree shutter angle in the 24 fps version -- not bad necessarily but some would find the strobing a bit annoying.

We're just going to have to accept that 48 fps photography & presentation is not going to look like traditional film, that's all. The question is whether after two hours of a feature, you get used to it, even get to like it. I don't know. The other question is whether it makes the 3D experience less annoying because you won't have as much motion blur & strobing causing ghosting in the 3D glasses.

I think if "The Hobbit" had entirely been shot on location in real sunlight, etc. then perhaps the 48 fps look would not seem to make everything feel like a soap opera shot on an interlaced-scan video camera because there would be a core reality of the natural setting... but on sound stages under lights where you are faking sunlight and faking being outdoors, it seems that the distancing effect of traditional 24 fps would help sell the illusion better. In other words, when you make everything more immediate and unprocessed, more "real", it makes the fakeness of cinematic technique (costume, make-up, lighting, sets) more obvious unless done to a higher degree of perfection (which is why shooting on location in real light would help.)

Jon Rosenbloom · June 12, 2012

I think if "The Hobbit" had entirely been shot on location in real sunlight, etc. then perhaps the 48 fps look would not seem to make everything feel like a soap opera shot on an interlaced-scan video camera because there would be a core reality of the natural setting... but on sound stages under lights where you are faking sunlight and faking being outdoors, it seems that the distancing effect of traditional 24 fps would help sell the illusion better. In other words, when you make everything more immediate and unprocessed, more "real", it makes the fakeness of cinematic technique (costume, make-up, lighting, sets) more obvious unless done to a higher degree of perfection (which is why shooting on location in real light would help.)

Perfectly stated.

Edited June 12, 2012 by Jon Rosenbloom

David Tabor · June 21, 2012

The Hobbit has actually not been shown at 48fps except at Cinemacon in April. The trailer that has been shown is only 24fps so if you think you are experiencing a problem with 48fps, it may be because of the dropped frames but more than likely it's just because when you look for something wrong it is always there. Peter Jackson has said there are no plans to release a 48fps trailer because it is an effect intended for immersion and it is so new for most viewers the effect just confuses people. That being said many reports from cinemacon were a bit thrown off by 48fps and made claims about the soap look of it. Many of those comments seemed to be offshoots of a few publications that seem to have had a problem with the idea of 48 frames from the start. The more rational articles (in my mind) agreed that it looked unfinished; which according to PJ is true because the footage has not even been graded, and different but it is not necessarily a bad thing. Here is a good example from someone who has seen it.. I lean more towards the belief that the man and team that made Lord of the Rings know what they are doing but it is probably just best to wait and see how it turns out.

David Tabor · June 21, 2012

I did not mean for that to sound rude. Sorry about that :)

Albert Smith · June 22, 2012

I think if "The Hobbit" had entirely been shot on location in real sunlight, etc. then perhaps the 48 fps look would not seem to make everything feel like a soap opera shot on an interlaced-scan video camera because there would be a core reality of the natural setting... but on sound stages under lights where you are faking sunlight and faking being outdoors, it seems that the distancing effect of traditional 24 fps would help sell the illusion better. In other words, when you make everything more immediate and unprocessed, more "real", it makes the fakeness of cinematic technique (costume, make-up, lighting, sets) more obvious unless done to a higher degree of perfection (which is why shooting on location in real light would help.)

I agree, well said. Regardless of the film, which I know pretty little about....fantasy has never really been for me, I think the 48fps is very interesting and I think over time will be adopted....when people take large unexpected steps negative backlash is always apart of it and smooth moving images have always been associated with soap operas and video cameras so that association is going to take a good amount of time for people to get past I think.....If movies were always shot at 48fps I doubt too many people would be thinking to shoot 24fps other then for stylistic effect.....I think for now the frame rate maybe best suited for a less set driven film though....would have been very interested to see a film like melancholia shot at 48fps

Gabriel de Bourg · August 27, 2012

I actually don't think 48fps is a bad idea for 3D. I always feel that the smoothness of film isn't the same in 3D, where it seems kind of fake. As the idea is to immerse more, well, then doing it in 48 makes sense to me.