

The Hobbit Underwhelms At 48 Frames Per Second - treatment
http://badassdigest.com/2012/04/24/cinemacon-2012-the-hobbit-underwhelms-at-48-frames-per-secon/

======
stephengillie
The news media is obviously trying to fan the controversy, as that's their
business model. Hopefully the almost-visible flickering in movies at theaters
will disappear when we switch to higher framerates.

"You can not get a more genuine, realistic viewing experience than this unless
you are watching a performance live," wrote About.com's Rebecca Murray, though
she noted that it takes your eyes a moment to adjust.

"You're right there and it's breathtaking," noted Hollywood Elsewhere's Jeff
Wells. "No strobing, no flickering, pure fluidity and much more density of
information...It's the best 3D I've ever seen and probably ever will see in my
life. 48 fps 3D is so much easier on your eyes than 24 fps 3D."

[http://www.eonline.com/news/hobbit_controversy_peter_jackson...](http://www.eonline.com/news/hobbit_controversy_peter_jackson/311314)

------
blackhole
"Guys this new technology looks weird, we should just stick with what works!
There's no way this has anything to do with me not being used to it!"

~~~
shock-value
It has nothing to do with not being used to it. TV dramas could easily have
shot at 60fps starting a decade ago (or more) but none do (aside from some
daytime soaps). Even most comedies are 24-30fps these days. The reason is that
higher framerates cheapen the look in exactly the way the author of this
article describes.

------
demallien
Peter Jackson's right you do get used to it after a while. I Bought a Samsung
LED television that runs at 60 frames per seconds a couple of years back and
it took me three months to get used to it. But now when I look at screens that
run at slower frame rates, they just look dull and flat.

~~~
shock-value
I don't know of any tv ever produced that is less than 50-60fps. Do you mean
that it interpolates lower fps content to bring it up to 60? If so all I can
say is, I am surprised you like that effect. I can't stand it and always
disable it.

~~~
demallien
Yes, I do mean interpolation. Just for the record, in the parts of the world
where I have worked (Australia and France), a typical video stream, be it
broadcast/pay-tv/dvd runs at 30fps or less. Recent televisions will
interpolate to display frame rates up to 120fps.

Like you, I hated the effect at first, but I left it running because I do STB
user interfaces for a living, and I need to know what people that don't fiddle
with their television are seeing. It's jarring at first because for reasons
that I don't fully understand, you are able to discern where the light sources
are in a scene when using this technique. You can see that big reflectors have
been used for outside shots, or that there is a spot shining just off camera.
This is what gives it that cheap video effect, because as anyone that works
with video for a living can tell you, the crappy quality of home videos is
mostly due to poor lighting.

Cinematographers are going to have to work harder in the future to assure a
more even light field in their shots. In the meantime, I have found that after
using this type of display technology for more than a few months, you start to
prefer the high frame rate to older technologies.

------
sp332
From a comment on that page, I found this info:
<http://www.videocandycompany.com/?p=224> Apparently, in order to shoot at a
higher framerate, they used a suboptimal aperture. It looks crappy because the
exposure is relatively longer, so you get _extremely_ smooth-looking footage.

~~~
drucken
Very informative, thank you.

In short, to me, all this effort is being driven by studio's trying to justify
cinema ticket prices by offering big films shot for 3D. Even though the most
profitable and successful films have always been 2D and in general movie
watchers avoid 3D!

In addition, perhaps Jackson would rather be known for pioneering work than
making yet another good film.

Given the choice in aesthetic for film has been driven by culture rather than
technology for much of its 103 years, the parties concerned are all taking a
big risk...

------
Gring
Bad review.

That "video look" he's mentioning is the absence of 24fps artifacts I'm very
glad we get rid of.

He could as well just have written "meh, reality has a video look".

~~~
shock-value
No, you're wrong. It has nothing to do with artifacts. Higher frame rates just
do not have that "otherworldly" look that everyone associates with high
quality cinema. It's a completely psychological effect, but it's nonetheless
entirely real and it absolute cheapens the look and is very distracting.

Moreover, anyone who knows anything about film would have seen these problems
a mile away upon hearing that The Hobbit is shooting at 48fps. I honestly
can't believe these directors were (initially) behind this, but then again
they were apparently backers of 3D as well which also has a reputation for
cheapening the look, although that is more debatable. I think moviegoers will
outright hate 48fps though, rather than just gradually shy away from it as in
the case of 3D tech.

~~~
Gring
"otherworldly" is just a nice word for "1920s technology".

Getting closer to reality is a common thread in the arts. As soon as man had a
way to move from one-color cave paintings to using colors, he started to use
them.

This is the artistic expression that Peter Jackson is going for.

In one of the video blogs he said: "The result looks like where the screen
was, there is now a hole in the wall, and beyond that is reality".

Imagine, instead of looking a film of Bilbo, you're transported right there
into Middle-earth and it looks absolutely real. Wouldn't that be great? I'm
very much looking forward to that experience.

~~~
shock-value
Yes you are right in a way that it looks more "real". But real in the sense
that you are acutely aware that it is a staged production when viewing it. The
author of this article directly addresses this when he says just that, and
also notes that it looks like a behind the scenes featurette.

I have not seen footage from The Hobbit but I have worked with other dramatic
content at high frame rates and I know exactly what the author is describing.
It's really gonna bug people if they really do release at 48fps.

~~~
Gring
I've seen several Showscan films, and I loved them.

I think the biggest problem is acting. 24fps lays a veneer of "movie look"
over all performances. With higher framerates, actors can no longer count on
that.

They have to sell it much more, like in a theatre, but with large screen
closeups projected on a 20 meter screen.

In a way, it's a new challenge actors never had before. It will be interesting
to see whether there are indeed performance differences among the Hobbit
actors.

------
Metapony
I doubt it's the framerate. Peter Jackson just isn't the greatest director in
the world. That seems more in line with the criticism I've seen.

------
Hominem
I'm a bit confused, if the FPS was the issue wouldn't the helicopter shots
look like crap as well? Is 48 FPS more optimal for helicopter shots?

~~~
geon
The writer is used to watching nature documenataries made for TV. They have
always been shot in 50-60 fps.

------
gte910h
People said very similar things when video started getting released on 720p
and 1080p resolutions.

I'm going to wait to judge for myself.

------
jsprinkles
I'm only a little worried about this. When you ask the lay what "film" looks
like and why video looks different, most people cannot quantify what it means
(but can definitely tell the difference). "Film" to most people is that slow,
deliberate frame advancement of 24 fps, blur and all. Take that away, and it
doesn't look like "film" any more; it's just how we're collectively used to
it.

This reminds me of, say, _Law & Order_. The detectives are standing around a
monitor, reviewing security tape; medium shot of the detectives, 24 fps. Full
screen tape: 30 drop. Back to the detectives, 24 fps. We've all seen that
before -- whenever the characters play with a consumer camera or look at a
security feed, visually, a distinction is set by accelerating the frame rate.
Producers know this. It just shouts "not a professionally-photographed
teleplay!" in most peoples' minds now, and I think there will be resistance to
rewrite that rule mentally.

While I welcome dramatic entertainment that looks more like real life, I worry
that culturally, we're used to 24 fps and it's going to be a begrudging
transition. At least HDTV offered a noticeable improvement. Not everybody will
say the same thing about more visually real entertainment; entertainment is
_entertainment_ for a reason, and we do not want to be reminded of real
scenarios in most cases (it's a flight of fancy).

My two cents. Will be interesting to see how this plays out, anyway. Imagine
anthropologists discovering threads like this one in thousands of years: "they
even quibbled over the frame rate of their time-dilated visual
entertainment..."

~~~
melvinmt
I'm not sure the difference has much to do with frame rates but rather with
'depth' by relying heavily on focus in film with blurred backgrounds whereas
handheld and security cameras usually lack this depth and show a flattened
image.

------
hej
Could be culture. We are used to films looking a certain way and TV looking
different, everything else could very well be rationaizations. Not that it
changes much about the situation, though.

~~~
taligent
It is a cultural, subconscious effect. Higher frame rate content is associated
with either real life (sports, news) or bad TV (soaps).

I don't think the content association is the problem. The problem is that most
people watch movies to escape from real life. It could be that higher frame
rate is used for action movies e.g. Transformers and lower frame rate for
dramas but I don't know how that would work.

Oh and any argument about "getting used to it" can be shot down with 3D. The
world has had plenty of time to adjust and overwhelmingly still hate it.

~~~
zoul
_The problem is that most people watch movies to escape from real life._

As I understand it, the problem is that movies are an illusion and in order
for them to work, the viewers must buy into it, which is apparently a bit
harder with higher framerate.

