Higher Frame Rate Version of "The Hobbit" Will Get Limited Release

Yeah this is news Alex, caught this on Ign yesterday afternoon, still watching 48 fps is worse than watching a Mexican soap opera!

is anybody else put off by the whole idea of The Hobbit by this , or is it just me?

this is bullsh*t, lol isn't this like, a kick in jackson's nuts, he must be thinking.. fk me for throwing away all that money into a clearer picture quality which isn't well recieved.. Why , why do they do this? just shoot the damn film like you shot LOTR :S

I like how cinematic progress has to suffer because people are too f*cking close-minded and stupid to adapt to new technology, but at the same time, they can figure out how to access Facebook from their Android phone while driving, applying makeup, and eating an Egg McMuffin.

Jackson clearly has a gut but no backbone. He took it like a bitch at Comic-Con by only showing a 24fps preview or whatever and now nearly the entire release will be sans 48fps.

^^It's his fault. Stupid. Why is he trying to push 48fps via films that cost as much as these?? Do it on smaller films so the ROI isn't an issue. He knows people are going to have some issues adapting, so why try to push the new frame rate through mission critical movies? Cameron can get away with that, but he can't. Just. Stupid.

I don't care much about the frickin' frame. Just bring us a new trailer already.

@mink

fair point, filmmaking must utilize these visual effect tools. I jus believe a project like The hobbit , or any other for that matter must concentrate more on telling the story well, unlike Avatar, which in my view was a major failure -spectacular sure, but it relied too heavily on vfx as a selling point; due to which the actual story suffered and movie experience was ruined for me. Then again, a blatant ripoff of Pocahontas shouldn't have been greenlit in the first place, so f*** cameron.

i have high hopes for The Hobbit, surely it will be a beautiful film, and hopefully will Not be like watching a soap opera :P

"Do it on smaller films so the ROI isn't an issue."

absolutely.

This isn't new technology, it's an option that's been available for a really really long time. People don't shoot on 24fps because they like the number and it's the only option. They do it because it's the BEST option.

Jackson just felt like he had to participate in the game of technological one-upmanship and said, "Hey why don't I just click this button and raise the frame rate? That'll be cool, right?"

I don't care about Jackson's ability to do something anyone can do on a camera. I care about his ability to capably tell this story. And, he's already faltering on that as well by stretching this into three movies.

While watching a 3D movie at 24fps it's a bit jarring because of how 3D works. 24fps isn't enough for 3D to be smooth. It's when 2D is shown at more than 24fps, like 30 or 48, it eliminates motion blur which your eyes do see and when it's gone the brain recognizes unnatural motion and is taken out of the film because it identifies the technology of the image.

^^^ Your thoughts Mink?

^^I agree with what you said, Taco, although I can't comment on the 3D/24fps because I've never, ever seen a film in 3D. Ever. Not even a 1950s or a 1980s stereoscopic film.

Certainly, the more frames per second the less the motion blur, because there's more information per second and there's less exposure per frame. The image is sharper overall and the motion more clear, less shaky.

Trumbull tried this back in the 70s I think at 60fps with Showscan. Never saw it, and I don't think any one else did either. Company died because the cost of the film killed them. Not an issue now with EPIC RED cameras that can shoot up to 120 fps in 5k (WOW!).

Hear Avatar will use 60fps instead of 48 to afford the 3D a much higher clarity with far less motion blur, for the benefit of both the CGI and the 3D format.




You can see 24fps:

http://tinyurl.com/9f9rk6r

versus 50fps:

http://tinyurl.com/cqusj7n

The 50fps IS a little jarring, at least to me, but I recognize that it's nothing more than the way I'm accustomed to perceiving video, so I assume, after a while, I'd get used to it.



"People don't shoot on 24fps because they like the number and it's the only option. They do it because it's the BEST option"

No, they did it because it's standard, and it's standard because for the longest time, 24fps was essentially the lowest framerate that provided a relatively smooth picture at an affordable cost. People got accustomed to 24fps and it naturally stuck.

First off, f*ck you, Warner Bros.

Second, 48fps is jarring at first and does seem kind of soap operaish or like you're watching a drama on the BBC, however your eyes quickly become accustomed to it and in the end I think it only helps to improve human visual perception as all motion blur is is your brain's inability to quickly predict what the next series of images is going to look like, hence something that is moving quickly becomes blurred. After watching a few movies at the higher frame rate though, your brain is being taught slowly what subsequent frames of footage are likely going to look like and the brain gets better at prediction of visual perception. You'll soon find yourself "seeing" things in your mind's eye or your dreams at the higher frame rate, crazy as that might sound.

The real reason hollywood is scared of 48fps is because once your brain becomes accustomed to it and better at next-image-prediction, and it does so quickly the younger and less fixed your brain is, the more like sh*t everything else looks. This means a big budget movie like The Hobbit shown exclusively in 48fps is going to turn off a lot of older viewers and stands to make less money for the studio. That goes without saying as Warner Bros. is in the business to make money and not art, so on second thought I can't say I blame them for limiting the release of a 48fps version. I can honestly say that I have no desire to see this movie in theaters if I can't find it in 48fps near by.

Nice PDF:

http://www.christiedigital.com/supportdocs/anonymous/christie-high-frame-rate-technology-overview.pdf

Covers a lot of facts regarding HFR as being used by Jackson, Cameron, et al.

People got accustomed to 24fps and it naturally stuck.

-Also projectors back in the early 1900's could only playback at 24fps. 24 was the fastest speed for theaters for a long time.

^^That's very true, and if I remember correctly, there was an issue with syncing audio to film that became impossible, or prohibitively expensive, at higher frame rates.

Mink, interested to hear why you've never checked out a 3d film. Not curious at all?

^^Not really. I've heard they give people HUGE headaches and the 3D isn't often done very well, like Journey to the Center of the Earth, and most of the films that use 3D aren't good, like Ice Age. Seems like 3D is just another reason to get lazy on the font end.

Believe it or not, I'd rather watch something like TDKR in 2D than Avengers in 3D. But that's just me.

@Mink:
I'm not a friend of 3D movies either first I hate the glasses they take away a lot of contrast and colour.
Second I dont know how other people perceive this but I get headaches from badly converted 3D movies, thats not the case with movies filmed in 3D, maybe thats because the brain trys to solve impossible equations with no solution, I mean things from the background looking as if they were on the foreground (conversion)

BUT honestly the Pixar movies have awesome 3D, compared to Ice Age with seemed years behind. I went to see BRAVE last week and they were showing a trailer for THE HOBBIT and that was the BEST LiveAction 3D I've ever seen. And it wasnt even at 48 fps.

I'd really like to watch it at 48 fps though, I dont like the soap opera effect at all but if it helps with the 3D I'm all up for it.

But 2D movies with more than 24fps no thanks. I just need the movie effect. And there is nothing bad about it.

@Mink:

"The 50fps IS a little jarring, at least to me, but I recognize that it's nothing more than the way I'm accustomed to perceiving video, so I assume, after a while, I'd get used to it."

would you like to have more than 24fps for 2D movies?
I just think that would feel to much like reality and when I go to the movies thats the very thing I want to leave outside, reality!

As for 3D, I think it helpes to drag you into the movie more when done right. I'd really like to know what 3D looks like at higher fps.

Did you here? Mink is a child molester. He threatened to rape my four year old daughter...and then everyone (Ranger and Trailer Trash) had a good laugh at my child's expense.

If you give this guy any credence, then I think you should strongly reconsider.

Mink said some really aweful things, and this site did nothing to stop him. For this reason, I will continue to be the vehicle for justice here.

Raping children is not funny, Minkowski. You should be ashamed of yourself. And until I get an apology, then you can expect to see more of this type of posting.

@plastic man
if you dont like what says, ignore him. I would hate to live in a world where internet posts were censored, wouldnt be able to laugh at averix's hilarious posts and that would just suck. Besides 90% of posters on here are males between the ages of 28 and 35 and thats just what our demographic does, get over it.

@PlasticDouche - mink only talked about raping your daughter. I actually did. Did you ever find her in that dumpster? What really turned me on is when she kept calling me Daddy!

Rape is such a horrible word.

I prefer the phrase 'pediatric vaginal invasion'.