The Hobbit at 48fps

[TyrannicalFascist]

So I just got back from seeing The Hobbit today. It was my third time seeing it (the first time in IMAX 3D, the second just regular 2D), and this time I saw it at 48 frames per second in 3D. (we didn't have an IMAX 3D 48fps option in town)

Just thought I'd share some thoughts and start the discussion about this experiment here. I work a lot with video and I've come to really understand the differences in frame rates and why they exist for different mediums. When I do home videos they don't look like film because they have a few more frames per second (29.97 vs 24).

Two of my friends have newer TVs that have a "motion smoothing" feature built in that is turned on by default. When they first installed them and put on a movie, I noticed things felt like they were moving faster than they should. My friends mostly didn't understand until I found the feature and disabled it. Generally they agreed it was better off, even though you get motion blurring on faster scenes and actions.

So seeing The Hobbit at 48 fps was just.....weird. It reminded me of older BBC shows and specials I've seen, which use a different frame rate than here in the states. When I first saw Bilbo, it was like he was hyper and zooming around the room, like the film was sped up. It was especially distracting during battles or scenes with a lot of action.

On the plus side, once I got used to it (more or less) I kind of enjoyed the static talking scenes like Gandalf and Bilbo at the beginning, or Gandalf and Galadriel in Rivendell. I could also tell it had the most detail onscreen of any of the showings I saw. I think it also enhanced the 3D effect some at a lot of points. There were even a few moments where it seemed more real than a normal screen.

But on the down side, the lighting, some of the makeup and a lot of the effects looked really fake. Overall it was just a weird experience. And having seen it at 24 fps twice before, I knew that it normally looked very good, just like Lord of the Rings.

I think the biggest problem is that the human eye is designed to see motion blurring. If you wave your hand back and forth really fast, you see a blurry hand made up of your hand at various points.

I give Peter Jackson a lot of credit for trying something new, but I think that the result needs a lot of work in finding a balance between smoothness and blur.

What did you guys think?

[Dr.Agon]

what is showing it at the higher fps supposed to achieve?
if it looks better at the lower rate surely its experiment fail??

[TyrannicalFascist]

I'm not really sure why they tried it, other than 24fps was the standard in the past due to limitations of film. Now that film is no longer used, the limitation is not necessary. I think they thought it would show much more detail (which it did) and give a much more "real" experience, as if you were looking through a rectangular hole into this world.

But I would say it failed, because part of the magic of movies is using the limitations to your advantage. Removing them makes the trickery transparent, so to speak.

[segamer]

I'm not really sure why they tried it, other than 24fps was the standard in the past due to limitations of film. Now that film is no longer used, the limitation is not necessary. I think they thought it would show much more detail (which it did) and give a much more "real" experience, as if you were looking through a rectangular hole into this world.

But I would say it failed, because part of the magic of movies is using the limitations to your advantage. Removing them makes the trickery transparent, so to speak.

I will say that you're mistaken in assuming that 24 fps was the standard due to limitation. That's not the case at all. Though early silent films usually ran at 16 frames per second, they were able to push up to 26 fps at the time. 24 fps became a standard due to sound. But I'm not going to get into the history if it.

It's weird that Peter Jackson would film the Hobbit at 48 fps. Soap operas and the news is projected at 30 fps. Must have looked cheesy. 

[noclass_nick]

Im in new zealand, live in wellington, where we had premier etc. Its kinda annoying how people are all bitching about this because "oh im not use to it, it must be wrong" he's got balls to do it, you say it looks fake and cheesey now, but who knows in so many years this could be the standard like how it went from 16 to 24. When its all about hd and stuff these days why wouldnt you try to get the most out of it?

[TyrannicalFascist]

I'm not really sure why they tried it, other than 24fps was the standard in the past due to limitations of film. Now that film is no longer used, the limitation is not necessary. I think they thought it would show much more detail (which it did) and give a much more "real" experience, as if you were looking through a rectangular hole into this world.

But I would say it failed, because part of the magic of movies is using the limitations to your advantage. Removing them makes the trickery transparent, so to speak.

I will say that you're mistaken in assuming that 24 fps was the standard due to limitation. That's not the case at all. Though early silent films usually ran at 16 frames per second, they were able to push up to 26 fps at the time. 24 fps became a standard due to sound. But I'm not going to get into the history if it.

It's weird that Peter Jackson would film the Hobbit at 48 fps. Soap operas and the news is projected at 30 fps. Must have looked cheesy.  

You're right, I just didnt phrase my sentences very well.   I was mostly going off of reasons stated by Jackson and others in the blogs and interviews during production. 

What I meant was - since 24fps was the standard back in the days of film - it placed a limitation on the smoothness of video in the digital film age, particularly 3D. A limitation that is totally unnecessary today, aside from just being a convention. Back in the film stock days, it was originally chosen after much experimentation to have the clearest sound at the cheapest cost and remained the standard afterward. They could have done more, but at a greater cost. With the advent of digital filmmaking, they kept the standard. As for why Jackson and co. chose 48fps specifically, other than being double, I don't know specifically. I believe it is because they saw it as the next logical step with 3D. But there are psychological effects that may not have been considered. http://movieline.com/2012/12/14/hobbit-high-frame-rate-science-48-frames-per-second/

I certainly don't think it shouldn't have been tried, and in fact I think there's a lot to be learned from this. It's a risk, in the same way it was a risk for Christopher Nolan to  film several scenes in 2 action movies on IMAX cameras.

[wiggy]

Ugh, you said "back in the day" of film.  God, I hope movies shot on actual film don't go poof.  I can't stand the idea of all movies shot digitally

[TyrannicalFascist]

Unfortunately, that's the way it's headed...

[djshok]

http://movieline.com/2012/12/14/hobbit-high-frame-rate-science-48-frames-per-second/

Interesting how in that article they say that the brain perceives 40 conscious moments per second and going past that is problematic.  Don't video games run at 60 fps?  I wonder if this is what makes games look perpetually unrealistic regardless of how real the graphics look...

[SasoriSoren]

Ugh, you said "back in the day" of film.  God, I hope movies shot on actual film don't go poof.  I can't stand the idea of all movies shot digitally

I don't understand not shooting on some version of film either. Digital has massive restrictions on the technology of the time it is shot. Film can be rescanned at higher resolutions which is why we are seeing HD re-releases of some classic stuff shot on film at it looks great (Star Trek TOS being a great example). But digital cannot do that, it can only be the maximum resolution of what it was shot with. Now it can be upscaled and everything digitally, but we all know what that can do (hello pixels).

It's a good thing I hate the Star Wars prequel trilogy. Those were shot on Digital only and when 4K is in every household that is going to look pretty sketchy.

[Moviefan2k4]

Actually, "The Phantom Menace" was shot on film.

[SasoriSoren]

Actually, "The Phantom Menace" was shot on film.

Yay 

[Deadpool]

wait is that the regular movie ? or is just on selected theaters?

[Moviefan2k4]

As far as I know, TPM was shot entirely on film, just like the OT. Lucas didn't start doing everything digitally until "Attack of the Clones".