48fps The Hobbit - First Review

[Carlos Reyes]

Jon Landau was at a talk a few weeks ago here in Miami and he talked for a while about really wanting to push higher frame rates, notably 48p to becoming the norm. Lots of respect to him and Cameron but I dont know. I think its the guys doing huge 3D epics that this really appeals to. I hate the look of 25p and 30p/60p, I can imagine I wouldnt like 48p either. There's just something about motion blur

[Rohan B]

Maybe 48fps is not the main problem at all in the first place. I think we are forgetting something mentioned long ago during the making of this movie,that its not shot on a 180 degree shutter angle but a 270 degree shutter angle, even 24fps shot on weird shutter angles look like bts footage(remember Public Enemies). They shot on this 270 degree shutter because they were shooting for both the 24fps stream and the 48fps one at the same time, keeping the motion characteristics of both frame rates in mind they chose 270 degree shutter, they said it gives a smooth silky look to 48fps and the 24fps extraction is also good. Maybe 48fps shot on a proper 180 degree shutter angle will truly enhance the quality and clarity at the same time keeping the cinematic aesthetic look intact.....

[sergio arguello]

Nope. Have you?

no and thats why I havnt had too much to say one way or another about it...might try it, you may actually be pleasantly suprized that the masters are where they are because of expierience. We used to do alot of Frame manipulation years ago in the music Video heyday and I expect the 48 fps
will only enhance the color depth space and feel better than 24fps...but as i said ill wait and see what the BIGBOYS do...

[Vadim Bobkovsky]

That's all I wanted to say here.

[Tobias Ashenheim]

I think these higher frame rates will forever split people and productions, just like 3D.. one wont win out and replace the other..
I really don't like 30+ fps or anything more than a 180 shutter but with PJ and JC embracing it, unfortunately its not gonna go away.

[Scott Crawley]

I think these higher frame rates will forever split people and productions, just like 3D.. one wont win out and replace the other..

Yea and HD will never be accepted because it is too sharp. Oops, I meant to say 4k... Oops

People evolve, tastes evolve. You can't measure dynamics in forever.

[Bob Gundu]

Kids these days watch shitty movies and reality TV shot on GoPros and watch them on tiny cellphone screens. I really think they can adapt to HFR.

[Steve Sherrick]

The first conclusion I arrive at while reading through this thread is that clearly we all see the world differently, and I mean that mostly in the literal sense. Our eyes are not all the same, and to add another layer to that, our experience with motion pictures is not all the same. So if you add up the physical differences with eyesight and what technology (formats, framerates, etc) you were brought up on, these can equate to completely different perceptions amongst us, hence what I believe is at the heart of discussion here.

For me, this is very simple. I can't form a judgement until I see The Hobbit. Seeing a trailer on my laptop does very little to aid in that judgement. Also, the movie is not complete, the final look not established. I need to sit in the theater, watching the movie in a way that Peter jackson intended me to see it, and then at that point go entirely based on what my experience was like watching the movie. Quite frankly I am not being influenced by anything anyone says here. If people hate high framerates, that's their business. I know Lucas Wilson, he's a really good guy and I respect his knowledge, his hard work, and his dedication to advancing technology and storytelling. But even then, he can only provide information up to a certain point because I still have to sit in a theater and watch the movie and see if I enjoy it.

Now, let's say hypothetically I do enjoy the movie, can I expect that everyone else will or should enjoy it as much as me. Of course not because this gets back to vision and what our vision system has been trained on. No two systems are exactly alike. The greatest challenge that Peter Jackson, James Cameron, and our very own Lucas Wilson have in front of them is whether or not a large majority of people have a vision system that is attracted to the presentation methods they are employing. Also, another consideration here is the people who may not necessarily be in that group that likes the technology but does enjoy the story in spite of the technology. As long as those numbers add up, I think they will have success.

In my own little world, I'm hoping for a great story where the technology is as invisible as possible while it immerses me deep into the world of these fantastic characters. If I am too aware of the technology, or the individual components of the filmmaking process (set design, makeup, CG, etc.) then there is a great chance this will be a disappointment for me. But I am going into it with great optimism because I want them to succeed and I want to be entertained by a great filmmaker. Prometheus is the other movie I have very high hopes for and the same criteria applies.

[Tobias Ashenheim]

Yea and HD will never be accepted because it is too sharp. Oops, I meant to say 4k... Oops

People evolve, tastes evolve. You can't measure dynamics in forever.

Just to clarify, you think 3D is going to supersede 2D across the board?
1080p + 4k were measured against/ competing with, the sharpness of time tested and accepted 35mm film... so its not a perfect metaphor.

and if corrination street becomes the new cinematic standard ill eat my scarlet.

[Carey Lee Coffey]

Soap operas and the "soap opera look" have been around for a long time, and no filmmaker has ever tried to mimic the look of them. If the "soap opera look" was a going to catch on, it would have happened a long time ago. The fact that the "soap opera look" is a negative description should tell you something right there. It looks bad. It looks fake. it looks "video-ish". The "soap opera look" will never be accepted.