General Category > General Discussion
The Hobbit at 48fps
TyrannicalFascist:
--- Quote from: segamer on December 22, 2012, 01:50:47 AM ---
--- Quote from: TyrannicalFascist on December 22, 2012, 01:23:34 AM ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
You're right, I just didnt phrase my sentences very well. :P 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:
--- Quote from: TyrannicalFascist on December 22, 2012, 05:15:28 AM ---
--- Quote from: segamer on December 22, 2012, 01:50:47 AM ---
--- Quote from: TyrannicalFascist on December 22, 2012, 01:23:34 AM ---http://movieline.com/2012/12/14/hobbit-high-frame-rate-science-48-frames-per-second/
--- End quote ---
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...
--- End quote ---
--- End quote ---
SasoriSoren:
--- Quote from: wiggy on December 22, 2012, 09:25:54 AM ---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 :(
--- End quote ---
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.