The Hobbit 3D - 48 fps

[Emanuel A.]

Why do film people tabout about degree shutter? I find it annoying as many people will not understand that 180 degree shutter at 24fps means something completely different to at 48fps. Why not just say.. 1/48 sec shutter at 48fps. means the same as open shutter at 48fps, while 24fps shot with 180 degree means the same 1/48 of s second.

I have seen the James Cameron example footage, and faster frame rates will be as significant to cinema as going from SR audio to digital audio. Ie, people will specifically wait until they can get into the faster frame rate cinemas. Its that much better and more interesting to watch.

The bigger problem is that stunt people will have to improve their game. In the demo, it was far easier to see the stunt people putting it on and not a real fight. It was far more realistic to watch. more "Like being there"

I think faster frames rates will be a big winner with audiences.

This issue about it looking like video.. It can, but its something that can always be made to look more like 24fps in post. But at the end of the day. The ART of film, the look etc, will be left behind as the wider appreciation of viewers wanting the experience that makes them feel more and more like they are really there.. will win. (Thats what digial Audio and multi channeling was about, and no dought it was a vast improvement.)

James

Even if I can't agree with you as far as realistic part concerns, sometimes «far more realistic to watch, more like being there» means a way less, most part of the time I couldn't agree better with the first part of yours. There are posts like these that make reduser to be one of the best virtual movieschools around if/when well done. We should all beware we're speaking for some different experiences out there (E

 

[Dave Blackham]

Sounds good to me, 24fps in some situations really isnt nice. A high frame rate gives a very solid looking image which can ints own right look great. Its just another tool that allows a different look. iIt doesnt look like an interlaced image to me.

I wonder when deciding on frame rate the early pioneers wouldnt have chosen something faster and with less flicker ?

Some of it is to do with viewing habits though. In the UK where I live viewers hate 3/2 pulldown where as some of my american friends dont notice it at all.

 

[Andrew Walker]

I've seen the "Hobbit" trailer in 3D a couple times now and the version I saw was at 24fps and it was a DCP. The motion in the trailer looked just like a regular film. There were no odd looking motion artifacts. I've also seen some of the footage projected at 48fps 3D and that does look a bit different. Everything looks fast but it isn't, which is really weird. Like your brain is trying to make sense of all those extra frames. All I can say is PJ and crew did their homework and covered their asses on this one because the 24fps version looks great. 48fps is going to take some getting use to.

 

[SeanBrown]

Andrew where did you see a trailer?

 

[Andrew Walker]

Andrew where did you see a trailer?

At work. I work as a projectionist for Warner Bros. sometimes.

 

[M.D. Hilton]

I just saw Hugo recently and overall I thought the movie looked wonderful in 3D. I have not been advocate of 3D very much here or anywhere else on the web for that matter. I applaud the efforts of the filmmakers but most of the time, it doesn't do it for me. Hugo was different. However, I do think there may be something to the 48fps recipe that Cameron and Jackson are using. The first 15 minutes of Hugo I was having a difficult time getting comfortable. My eyes were straining, and I wasn't sure I was going to enjoy the movie very much. I think what might have been causing it was how much the camera is moving in those first 15 minutes. Perhaps 48fps would have helped. I think any improvements to moving shots in 3D will be welcome. I'm not sure 48fps will automatically give it a soap opera look. There are a lot of other factors going into it that will give it a cinematic look.

Hugo may be the film that restored my interest in 3D. Even my wife who really struggles with 3D and who is pregnant (nausea is already a factor) said afterwards that it was the best 3D she had ever seen, and actually really enjoyed it. So I guess this goes to show that it's not necessarily the format that is at fault with 3D, it's how it's executed. Hugo has amazing set and art design, the 3D is so meticulously planned out, and the story and performances are great. It truly is a celebration of film history and in a way what they are doing with 3D is perhaps similar to what Melies was doing with his films. Pushing the technology to offer new way of looking at motion pictures. Melies was literally painting on film and filmmakers today are painting with three dimensions.

I look forward to see what is done with The Hobbit. I'm hoping it is as effective as Hugo.

I usually dislike 3D greatly so I chose to see Hugo in 2D - you make me wish I'd have gone ahead and saw it in 3D.