The Hobbit Shot at 48fps Instead of 24fps, Mixed Reactions

[techguy911]

The whole negative thing is why is there no blur, it looks too real lol that is what happens when things change look at black and white tv when color was introduced i was so use to watching b&w took a while getting use to color tv, there was alot of complaints about that too.
Then when HD hit tv just as many complaints including the porn industry due to the ability to see imperfections in skin on the women more had to have plastic surgery.
Also people took a while to get use to those black boarders and so much detail some did not lots of complaints there.
Also 3d i would prefer to see films at faster frame rate but 3d after 15 mins or so i loose the 3d for some reason it seems to go flat and picture darkens colors seem to darken so i don't care for 3d movies.

 

[MajinCry]

[citation][nom]pharoahhalfdead[/nom]I would like to see 48fps in nature programs. Hey, if they re-released Planet Earth and Frozen Planet using 48fps scenes in stead of the standard I would buy them again. I think that's where it would benefit most. I'm not concerned with movies using the technology.[/citation]

True dat.

 

[zaznet]

Higher frame rates might actually get me to try another 3D film in theaters one day. Theater should have a higher quality than what I view in my home. Otherwise it lacks the draw and I just wait for everything to hit Netflix/Redbox/etc.

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]mr_bonkers[/nom]BOO.24fps is what makes cinema LOOK like Cinema. I can't stand home-video like smoothness. It doesn't look like a movie anymore when you get framerates that fast. I'd rather put up with camera and object motion blur and judder if it means it looks cinematic.[/citation]
id rather have nice crisp images, and so help me god if a shakey cam movie was made to look any better...

a movie only looks like that because it was the lowest frame rate that looked acceptable back than, film cost allot of money... we don't have to use film any more, so why are we still useing a dated frame rate? film looks like it does because of FLAWS.[citation][nom]techguy911[/nom]The whole negative thing is why is there no blur, it looks too real lol that is what happens when things change look at black and white tv when color was introduced i was so use to watching b&w took a while getting use to color tv, there was alot of complaints about that too.Then when HD hit tv just as many complaints including the porn industry due to the ability to see imperfections in skin on the women more had to have plastic surgery.Also people took a while to get use to those black boarders and so much detail some did not lots of complaints there.Also 3d i would prefer to see films at faster frame rate but 3d after 15 mins or so i loose the 3d for some reason it seems to go flat and picture darkens colors seem to darken so i don't care for 3d movies.[/citation]
personally i dont see 3d in normal life, so my only taste of it is in a theater... i never lose the depth
secondly, with the porn... i have to agree... things that before weren't noticeable on camera, now are a red bullseye... ill never forget the first ingrown hair on a butt i saw in hd... but at the same time, i never liked movies, i preferred pictures, and they were always higher definition, but the models are almost always either made up to look better, or photoshoped the more... do not wants out, cant do that with video.

 

[chriscornell]

To people compairing 48fps gaming with 48fps films - you can't. Movies use motion blur, and your eyes therefore NEVER notice the lack of frames if you watch a 24fps film. Why do you think gaming developers are implementing more and more blur in games? Because ancient crap consoles like PS3 and Xbox360 can't deliver a framerate high enough when games need to look just a little like pc-games from the post 2005 era, motion blur makes poop gaming 30fps consoles seem as if they run at a higher framerate. To tamper with the 24fps movie standard is a shame though, and often makes never films look like they are shot on a cheap handheld device. Look at "Public Enemies" from 2009 by Michael Mann. That film could have been gorgeous, but was ruined by digital cameras. I loved Peter Jackson's LoTR films, and I'm probably gonna love The Hobbit-saga as well (The book is far better than the LoTR ones IMO) - but I hope that digital photography doesn't ruin the experience.

 

[Guest]

The Man is responsible for the Lord of the Rings trilogy and King Kong, for gods sake, he knows what he is doing and what he is talking about. It is his movie and his choice on how it gets shot. I do not see anyone else tackling it.

personally, he is my favorite director and I am looking forward to the hobbit in full 3D 48 FPS glory.

Means also I will be able to buy the 3D Blu-Ray to watch at home on our 50" Panasonic 3D Plasma in all its glory!

Just because you are used to something (24fps) does not mean its the best!

48FPS look more real, simple, like when you first go HD, it looks different, but you get used to the superior quality, and then SD sucks after a while!

 

[Zingam_Duo]

Anything less than 60fps is shit!

 

[Zingam_Duo]

[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]um... no... its not a gimmick if its actually shot in 48fps, just like 3d isn't if its a real 3d movie and not a crappy conversion many are.higher frame rate will look weird at first, but think of real life, we don't have fps in real life, the "cinematic" feel he is talking about is it being to clean and such... we have things in video games like deapth of field, that sun flair, and things like that that mimic the downfalls of cameras and such... we make the games look worse, and take up processing power, to make them look like film or "real life" for some stupid reason. if its an actual 120hz monitor, than you got a great looking hq monitor... if you got it on the cheap and the 120 hz lags... well... yea you wasted money. disney has only ever been good at remaking classic literature. when ever they try to do their own thing, it usually fails hard. older disney was good, when walt and his infulance was still around "if you are only thinking of the children, your dead. what are adults but children grown up" that is a quote (though not exact) of his... i hate his company and what they did to copyright, but i have to admit that people like that are a dieing bread. corporate mentality cant let a 100million + movie be original unless you have MAJOR clout. usually you end up with a boring movie with effects, it goes through the paces that have proven successful in the past, but never break the mold. because it doesn't look like a cinematic disaster, and looks crisp, i can imagine what it looked like, and i can tell you this, there is no way you can watch an action movie, especial shakey cam movies, and not see excessive blur when the camera moves. and when i say cinematic, i mean that it has all the flaws in it that critics cant live without. remember many of them are pretentious snobs. yea, because real life is 24fpsyou arent use to seeing a movie any faster than that... its why 120hz and 240hz look unnatural when you first watch them, but give them 30 min, and its a bit hard to go back.and i have to trust him on shooting in 3d, imagine the lord of the rings movies if they were 3d given all the special effects... i agree with you, but he is also directing the movie... he has to hype it.48fps looks unatural at first, but its like 120 hz, you get use to it, and its hard to go back after a while. i remember a time when competitive people reduced graphics setting as much as they could to get 120fps off a game as the normal... partially because if the frames dipped it was still a playable rate, but also because they honed themselves to the point where they needed that for the speed they played. now if a game gets 60fps off a midrange card people complain... will never understand people. but on the same token, blindly moveing forward is never good, see windows 8 and a clear example... and to a lesser windows 7, which cut many features i still miss after 5 months of useing it. or because these people that are complaining want movies to go back to the black and white days, because they were more artistic, or probably because the people complaining cant enjoy a movie that Terrence Malick didn't make. trust me, there are tons of pretentious critics, and most of them are the voices you hear all to often... or know about, Roger Ebert, im sure we all know, is so pretentious about movies that he can barely enjoy anything new, and not as pretentious as himself. from my understanding, they insert frames into movies to make them a higher rate, but nothing happens in those frames... i cant articulate it, but i don't believe its a true 24fps film, i may be completely wrong through. its hard to explain... at least record vs digital... there is something about a record that i cant put my finger on that sounds better than pre cd music.but here its also a subjective thing... where some people will love it, and some will have to live with the change, and we will have to bare with the crappy conversions for years. given a choice i woundnt want to watch low fps, but i learned from vhs and dvd that some things will never be better in new formats...[/citation]

In recent years it is not the fps, it is the content that makes Hollywood's production pure shit!

 

[zak_mckraken]

I'd like him to reshoot Braindead at 48fps. The lawnmower scene would be awesome!

 

[aevm]

I don't think current DVD/Blu-Ray players know about 48 fps. I hope the 48 fps will only apply to the theaters, and the DVD will not require buying a special DVD player.

 

[halls]

I've seen a movie playing at higher than 24 FPS, and I have to repeat the complaint I heard from a reviewer who wrote about seeing a screening of the Hobbit at 48: it looks weird. Reminds me of a soap opera's camera work. This could probably change if every movie from now on were shot at 48, but because I have only ever seen soap operas at a higher framerate, I have that association and it will be hard to shake for a while.

 

[kryojenix]

[citation][nom]agnickolov[/nom]I'm also tired of this ancient low frame rate. While 48 fps is a step in the right direction, we need to reach at least 60, possibly 72 fps. There's a reason viewers are getting confused - without the ancient motion blur you start to see flickering. If you remember the old CRT days, 72 fps was the lowest refresh rate you don't see flicker.[/citation]

Sorry, this is incorrect. Flicker is a completely different issue to framerate. The reason you see flicker at less than 72Hz (NOT fps) is because of phosphor fade. On a CRT monitor, the tube illuminates one pixel (or one subpixel) at a time, scanning across each row, and line by line down the screen. It does this entire process passing every subpixel on the screen 60 or 72 or more times a second - so to you it looks like the whole screen is lit, but you notice the progressive fade as a flicker if that refresh rate is less than 60Hz. LCD's don't have this issue as the pixels remain constantly lit until signalled to change - for example, you won't see any flicker on the Windows desktop even if you set your refresh rate to 60Hz or lower.

I think we'll get used to 48fps, but we'll always enjoy 24fps - it's just like people love movies where the setting and the characters are all squeaky clean, but they love gritty dramas on rustic sets even better.

 

[ismaeljrp]

I have seen some movies, in 30fps, albeit 6 generated frames. But still, I never get used to it. Moving objects seem detached from the background, as if it were a greenscreen, and it just feels like a Soap Opera. I have really tried to be positive and accepting, but it just bugs the hell out of me. I wonder how this 48fps will look.

For gaming yes I absolutely enjoy it, but movies are totally different.

 

[tmshdw]

[citation][nom]halls[/nom]I've seen a movie playing at higher than 24 FPS, and I have to repeat the complaint I heard from a reviewer who wrote about seeing a screening of the Hobbit at 48: it looks weird. Reminds me of a soap opera's camera work. This could probably change if every movie from now on were shot at 48, but because I have only ever seen soap operas at a higher framerate, I have that association and it will be hard to shake for a while.[/citation]
[citation][nom]whysobluepandabear[/nom]Someone tell me why higher FPS is bad? Is this the same argument that people have with record players vs digital? They're convinced that, that "Noise" somehow makes it sound better?[/citation]

The flat "video camera" look of the image and the frame rate probably have nothing to do with each other. It took a while for older "video camera"s to achive the added detail and color/shading subtlety of what film can capture. Its probably the lack of detail color capture on this new generation of high frame rate camera thats at fault and not the frame rate.

 

[haftarun8]

As far as I know, The Hobbit was shot using RED Epic cameras, which record the footage in their own RAW format, with intra-frame compression set to a very low ratio. There is more color/light data in each frame than any current display or projector can even realize, and likely more than any film stock can use, not to mention that footage being shot at at least 6K res. It's not the camera's lack of anything. 48fps with a shutter speed of 1/96s will reveal a lot more detail in a movie...likely in this case too much. While the detail itself is amazing, you also get to see all the shortcomings of the sets, use of perspective, compositing edges, and shortcomings of CG vs. reality a lot more than before. It's like being forced behind the scenes and seeing exactly how it all works, even when you don't want to. Bye bye magic and suspension of disbelief. Hello looking through a window at a bunch of actors in costumes on sets with awkward CG slapped on top.

 

[southernshark]

A lot of people on Tom's still lament the death of VHS so don't be surprised at all the hate directed at 48 fps. Most of them would just as soon get rid of their tech and go back to humping goats for entertainment.

I, on the other hand, welcome newer, faster and better.

 

[haftarun8]

It seems the lack of blur is the main culprit that people are pointing out. Our eyes actually blur quite a bit, but we don't notice it as much as our eyes are constantly re-focusing and following objects in motion. That's very difficult to mimic with any kind of camera, and will never work for 400 people in a theater all at slightly different perspectives from one screen. I wonder if they keep the shutter speeds slower to induce a bit more blur (closer to what our eyes actually see), would the transition to 48fps be less odd and awkward?

I also wonder, why 48? Most of the countries producing media are using NTSC or PAL standards...why not film at 30, 50, or 60 fps? The HD era is a good time to finally consolidate and unify to more global standards, not deviate even further and create new ones. It just gives more headaches for production companies and forces consumers to have to shell out $$ to buy yet another media player that handles 48fps. (Blu-ray has no 48fps spec, and I doubt many existing players out there can be updated to include it. They can, however, play back 30 and 60 just fine in the US.)

 

[Belexandor]

[citation][nom]moricon[/nom]The Man is responsible for the Lord of the Rings trilogy and King Kong, for gods sake, he knows what he is doing and what he is talking about. It is his movie and his choice on how it gets shot. I do not see anyone else tackling it.personally, he is my favorite director and I am looking forward to the hobbit in full 3D 48 FPS glory.Means also I will be able to buy the 3D Blu-Ray to watch at home on our 50" Panasonic 3D Plasma in all its glory!Just because you are used to something (24fps) does not mean its the best!48FPS look more real, simple, like when you first go HD, it looks different, but you get used to the superior quality, and then SD sucks after a while![/citation]

No, the man is NOT responsible for LOTR. He's responsible for bastardizing one of the greatest works of fiction of all time. Now he's doing it to the hobbit. I'm all for pushing the technology forward. I just wish he wouldn't use Tolkien's work as a vehicle to deliver dumbed down narrative to the masses of sheeple; knowing they'll buy it...as long as it looks good. I shudder at the thought of what will be done to Stephen King's Dark Tower or David Eddings Belgariad and Mallorean.

 

[drapacioli]

Unlike everyone else here, I'll reserve my comment for AFTER I see the movie. The only way to know for sure is to watch it, and since this is a movie I would see regardless, I guess I'll be testing it out.

 

[tomfreak]

why cant we just stick to the common standard @ 30 or 60 fps? Storage isnt really a problem blu-ray can fit the entire movie in 30, 60fps.
if u talk about 3D there is dual layer for it.