The Hobbit...

[Frank Glencairn]

The news about us filming The Hobbit at 48 frames per second generated a lot of comments. Of course, it's impossible to show you what 48 fps actually looks like outside of a movie cinema, but there were several interesting and insightful questions raised....

We will be completing a "normal" 24 frames per second version—in both digital and 35mm film prints. If we are able to get the Hobbit projected at 48 fps in selected cinemas, there will still be normal-looking 24 fps versions available in cinemas everywhere.


More soon ....

Cheers,
Peter J

Translation:

We got heavy Flak on that subject and we are not sure anymore, if 48fps was a good idea at all.
So we gonna show a 24fps version instead. In some selected theaters, we try the 48 thing as an experiment to see how the audience reacts.
Cheers,
Peter J


Frank

 

[Deanan]

Translation:

We got heavy Flak on that subject and we are not sure anymore, if 48fps was a good idea at all.
So we gonna show a 24fps version instead. In some selected theaters, we try the 48 thing as an experiment to see how the audience reacts.
Cheers,
Peter J


Frank

Incorrect translation.

 

[Steve Dent]

Through testing those guys have figured out that 48 fps is better for 3D. More immersive, less headache. Not 2D! Hobbitt is a 3D movie. Obviously, for traditional film projection where 48 fps isn't possible, they have to have a 24 fps option. I'm guessing they'll project 24 fps in digital where 3D is not possible.

 

[Jonathon Laing]

Incorrect translation.

+1 on the incorrect translation.. Miles off! Looking foward to see what kind of master peice him and Red pull off!

Jono

 

[Klas Persson]

Why would 270 degree shutter at 48fps give a silky look at 48fps that also looks great at 24fps (even better than 24fps at 180 degree shutter). Can someone elaborate?

-michael zaletel

I know it somewhat contradict the statement that they like the 48 fps more due to the less amount of judder and "strobe", but that aside... In 3d projection more fluid motion is not a bad thing. We all know, and most of us dislike, the open shutter look. "Soap opera" is not an uncommon word for the style. But in 3d it seems to work great, have not seen it myself but I can imagine I'd like it too. 24fps can be a little distracting in 3d movies. On the 24 fps projection on the other hand you do not want silky smooth motion, hence it "creates a very pleasing look at 24 fps as well". 1/72 shutter speed will certainly look sharper than 1/48, but of course more strobey too.

So if you like sharper images this will be better on both 24 and 48 fps. That said, there is a reason the standard shutter angle is 180º.

My guess is that they like the 1/72 look on 48fps 3d projection so much it is worth it to do the somewhat faster shutter speed than usual on the 24,25p versions.

Anyway. Peter Jackson is one of the greatest, at least in my mind, and I believe him when he says this is a good move for 3d projection. On 2d projection exclusive films on the other hand(which I prefer almost all movies to be except these kind of epic spectacles and animated films) I do not think this will be common practice. I do not think we will be seeing a lot of 48fps dramas.

 

[Steve Dent]

Jackson (and Cameron) are trying to get 3D into the mainstream, to keep cinema relevent to the general public. After Avatar, a slew of crappy 3D films came out, tainting it. So they're (again) trying to push the state of the art, to avoid the "gimmick" label and push 3D into the mainstream. And make a shitload of money.

Anway, you'd be insane to see either "the Hobbitt" or "Avatar II" in 2D, if you could at all avoid it.

 

[Robin Moran]

Any chance any EPIC-M owners will be posting a 48fps file to watch?

 

[Emery Wells]

Looks like the hobbit is monitoring in stereo with the JVC panels. Can anyone tell what the smaller panels are?

 

[Chuck Z]

Personally I still love 24 FPS for film, but the live-action segments of Avatar in 3D had really bad judder. Only the CGI sequences looked acceptable at 24 FPS. I think 3D might be the reason that 48 FPS takes off (in one form or another).

 

[David_Cox]

Personally I still love 24 FPS for film, but the live-action segments of Avatar in 3D had really bad judder. Only the CGI sequences looked acceptable at 24 FPS. I think 3D might be the reason that 48 FPS takes off (in one form or another).

This is exactly the reason. We all like the look of 24FPS for 2D, but the relationship for 2D is between the audience and the screen. For 3D, the ideal is that the screen seems to disappear and become just a hole into another world. With this in mind, anything that reminds the audience about the screen, camera or projector destroy the illusion. The judder that we know and like for 2D looks awkward and weird in 3D. If you're truly looking through a hole into another world, there is no reason for it to be there.

I don't think we can interpret PJ's comments about making a 24FPS version as any doubt in his mind that 48FPS is the way to go. It's just a fact of life that not every cinema will be able to show 48FPS. Likewise, there will no doubt be a 2D 4:3 version for retarded televisions - which can't be interpreted that PJ doesn't like widescreen!

It takes some kick-ass toys to make stereo 48FPS. Not least the EPICs of course, but in post you need some very serious machines just to play it, let alone do anything with it. Those New Zealanders must have some very serious post hardware in action.

 

[AnthonyFlores]

... but the relationship for 2D is between the audience and the screen. For 3D, the ideal is that the screen seems to disappear and become just a hole into another world. With this in mind, anything that reminds the audience about the screen, camera or projector destroy the illusion.

Great point. To reiterate what you and others have said, OF COURSE there is going to be a 2D 24fps version of the movie -- this a huge blockbuster that will be viewed on TV's of all sizes and resolutions, all over the world, where 2D and 24fps are still standard. The fact that they are shooting a version in 48fps -- even if just for 3D -- actually means that framerate is in all likelihood superior for 3D. Otherwise why bother?

I trust PJ and JC (and their respective teams) more than I trust those who are saying it "sucks" and "won't look good" without ever seeing it done properly.

Anthony

 

[Steve Dent]

It takes some kick-ass toys to make stereo 48FPS. Not least the EPICs of course, but in post you need some very serious machines just to play it, let alone do anything with it. Those New Zealanders must have some very serious post hardware in action.

If they post at 4K, in 3D at 48 fps, compared to a standard 2D 24fps 2K production, then it takes, let's see, 4x the pixels x 2 number of frames x 2 number of images, making 16 x more processing required! So every comp they do, every CG shot, and all colour correction require 16 times more processing power than a regular film.

I haven't heard yet if their pipeline is 4K but going 3D and 48 fps i would imagine that they're all in

I don't think they'd bother if they didn't think it would blow the audiences mind.

 

[alexwhitmer]

I don't think they'd bother if they didn't think it would blow the audiences mind.

That and the coolness of doing it. What greater satisfaction to realize what all that 16x tedium can become.

 

[Christopher Probst]

Haven't been avidly keep up on the progress of this film, but I have to say I'm excited to see what develops. I had my concerns about the feel of the motion with the 48fps capture framerate... Then I read this and I'm more excited and curious than ever to see the result!


This quote is from Peter Jackson's Facebook blog...

The news about us filming The Hobbit at 48 frames per second generated a lot of comments. Of course, it's impossible to show you what 48 fps actually looks like outside of a movie cinema, but there were several interesting and insightful questions raised.

We will be completing a "normal" 24 frames per second version—in both digital and 35mm film prints. If we are able to get the Hobbit projected at 48 fps in selected cinemas, there will still be normal-looking 24 fps versions available in cinemas everywhere.

Converting a film shot at 48 fps down to 24 fps is not a hugely difficult process, but it requires testing to achieve the best results. Some of this involves digital processes during post-production. We are also shooting the film a slightly different way, which is a question several of you asked. Normally you shoot a movie with a 180-degree shutter angle. Changing the shutter angle affects the amount of motion blur captured during movement. Reducing the shutter angle gives you the stroby (or jerky) "Saving Private Ryan" look.

However, we're going the other way, shooting at 48 fps with a 270 degree shutter angle. This gives the 48 fps a lovely silky look, and creates a very pleasing look at 24 fps as well. In fact, our DP, Andrew Lesnie, and I prefer the look of 24 fps when it comes from a 48 fps master."

 

[Jarek Zabczynski]

Anway, you'd be insane to see either "the Hobbitt" or "Avatar II" in 2D, if you could at all avoid it.

I enjoyed Avatar in 2D much better over the 3D version. When I watch a 2D film I can sit back and get sucked into the actual story and not get distracted by "Oh how cool is this?!!!" Personally I find 3D damaging to the movie watching experience. Odds are I will see these films in 2D first, then see the "awesome!" versions afterwards out of curiosity.

 

[Marc Wielage]

If they post at 4K, in 3D at 48 fps, compared to a standard 2D 24fps 2K production, then it takes, let's see, 4x the pixels x 2 number of frames x 2 number of images, making 16 x more processing required! So every comp they do, every CG shot, and all colour correction require 16 times more processing power than a regular film.

What scares me is that the visual effects people have double the work -- having to do twice as many frames as they would for a traditional 24fps project. And as it is, VFX schedules are tight, budgets are being cut, people are stressed out...

The people at Weta Digital and Park Road Post are among the best in the world, but man, I wouldn't want to be slammed with a dozen petabytes' worth of data for two projects simultaneously... <shiver>

 

[Mark Toia]

Hobbits on Red Epics.

Peter Jackson's two film adaptation of The Hobbit will be shot in 3D using RED DIGITAL CINEMA'S soon to be released EPIC Digital Cameras.

The successor to RED's industry changing RED ONE, the EPIC has 5K resolution, can shoot up to 120 frames per second and has a new HDRx™ mode for the highest dynamic range of any digital cinema camera ever made. Taking everything they had learned from building their first camera, RED designed the EPIC from scratch and have produced a smaller, lighter camera that is an order of magnitude more powerful.

The Hobbit will be amongst the first productions in the world to use the EPIC and at least thirty cameras will be required by the 3-D production. The EPIC'S small size and relatively low weight, makes it perfect for 3-D - where two cameras have to be mounted on each 3D rig.

Jackson has a long history with RED, dating back to when he directed the short film 'Crossing the Line' as a very early test of prototype RED ONE cameras. "I have always liked the look of Red footage." he says, "I'm not a scientist or mathematician, but the image Red produces has a much more filmic feel than most of the other digital formats. I find the picture quality appealing and attractive, and with the Epic, Jim and his team have gone even further. It is a fantastic tool, the Epic not only has cutting edge technology, incredible resolution and visual quality, but it is also a very practical tool for film makers. Many competing digital systems require the cameras to be tethered to large cumbersome VTR machines. The Epic gives us back the ability to be totally cable free, even when working in stereo."

Jim Jannard the owner and founder of RED flew to New Zealand earlier this year with members of his team so that Jackson could test the EPIC and assess its suitability. "Everybody at RED is incredibly proud that Peter has chosen the Epic" says Jannard, "The Hobbit is a major production, and could have chosen any camera system that they wanted. The fact that they went with us is extremely gratifying."

The Hobbit will start shooting in New Zealand early next year.

Jim

That man never ceases to amaze me.

Did you know, he will own the whole of New Zealand by Christmas...



kidding.
Go KIWI go.

 

[SeanBrown]

Peter is taking questions on Facebook. Find Peter Jackson producer and ask away.

 

[Iannis Holwech]

No comment! :biggrin:

 

[Will Devine]

No comment! :biggrin:

Give me your clothes, your boots and your ring of power.