The Hobbit at 48fps...

[Brian Boyer]

It all makes me wish that the Hobbit was projected not in HFR, but Variable Frame Rates, giving us our precious 24 for the slow stuff and HFR for the sweet action.

Others have expressed the same opinion in this thread but I'm not so sure that would be a good idea without some further modification and refinement of the process.

To my eye, not only is movement (even the slightest bit) affected at 48fps, but the lighting as well. I think straight switching back and forth (without some trickery) between 24 and 48fps would bring even more attention to the differences because you'd constantly have a frame of reference. I'm guessing whichever frame rate you prefer would look better to you and stand out. I don't think the presence of action in the 48fps scenes would be enough to keep you from noticing the change in overall look.

There have been countless psychological studies on the effects that proximity, environment, shape and color have on perception.

I mentioned old Doctor Who episodes in some earlier posts. Indoor scenes were captured on video at 60i and outdoor scenes were captured on 24fps film. You got used to the fact that it was just the way they did things and you eventually accepted it, but the jump wasn't any less noticeable (to me). In fact, it probably made the video look that much worse by comparison.

As I explained to Scott, it didn't make me like the show any less. However, from an aesthetic standpoint, I preferred the look of the scenes shot on film. If future variable rate films went this route and had a similar film-->video-->film look, I think it might be worse and it still wouldn't be anything new.

If there was a way to make the 48fps scenes look like the 24fps scenes in every other respect, just with smoother motion, then they'd be on to something. Otherwise, an either/or approach is probably best.

 

[Nick Morrison]

My wife and I saw The Hobbit tonight in 3D HFR. Couple of thoughts

1) For the first half, I downright hated the HFR. The motion looked way to abrupt, on everything. Camera moves, actors walking. It all looked sped up, fake, and unreal. Very distracting.

2) But then...slowly...like the rings pull on Bilbo...it began to take it's effect on me. I got used to it. At times, when there WASN'T ANY ACTION, I thought it was sublime. But even after I'd eased into it, I wasn't thrilled...

3) The 3D was amazing. I will probably see the next two movies in 3D 24fps.

4) The movie itself was a lot of fun.


When we got home, we popped in my WGA "Hobbit" screener (lucky us!) to compare it IMMEDIATELY in 2D 24fps. We wanted to see if they could pull out the frames successfully. We only watched the frist 20mins, but it looked fine...Just like the other LOTR movies. Besides a couple of weird moments, it looked like any other big, epic movie (except this one has lots more "classic soft" type diffusion going on!).

All in all, I had a blast at the theate through. PJ did a great job. The final shot...AHHH...

 

[Scott Crawley]

I mentioned the budgets because I was trying to make a point and illustrate that Peter Jackson has no right to justify his technical choices by insulting the people who didn't like those choices.

That attitude has just made me think much less of him. He could have been dealing with all this mess in a much more gracious and balanced attitude. Instead he chooses to insult everybody. Like he's some sort of genius and everyone else is backwards. He's being arrogant about it. And that's what I was trying to say, he's not a genius, not in the way he makes himself to be.

Perhaps he is just feeling a wee bit defensive. I don't see that as arrogant. If you ever had a bad review you might cut him some slack, because you know what that feels like.

Other filmmakers have proven to be much more forward thinking than him, with half the money. He produced District 9, but he didn't make it, he didn't conceive it. District 9 would not exist if it weren't for Neil Blomkamp. And District 9 is a much more important and forward thinking film in terms of cinematic experience than The Lovely Bones is or even The Hobbit. And it actually cost half the budget from The Lovely Bones! That's forward!

You seem to be equating the budgetary constraints with forward thinking, and I don't understand. As a Producer, PJ was in a prime position to shape all aspects of District 9. I have no desire to take anything from the Director, but you and I have no first hand knowlege of how big a role PJ played in shaping the film, so if you site District 9 as evidence against Mr. Jackson, your argument is seriously flawed.

The Hobbit is a great film, but also a very classically made film, there's nothing forward thinking about it, and making a big hype about showing it on what is essentially a TV format is not cool! So I really don't understand why he is so quick to point out how everyone is a traditionalist, while he is the one true traditionalist!

If I can point this out without flogging a horse... There it is again, a comparison <snip> to television. In ways it is valid, but to me it mostly indicates an association with a particular experience; small screen viewing with small sound in a well lit living room. (That is how I imagine most TV has been viewed in the course of it's history.) By stirring all of those TV memories in the subconscious minds of the audience while presenting his image of The Hobbit, Mr. Jackson opens the door for transference. That is to say that people may be subconsciously imparting a plethora of qualities that they associate with the TV viewing experience on to his film. "Sitcom lighting" is just one of the many examples that I might point to in this thread.

Orange=edits

 

[António Fagundes]

Scott, if you happen to see Neils Blomkamp's short masterpiece 'Alive in Joburg' you'll understand how District 9 came to be. This short film is District 9 minus one and a half hour! In my opinion, this was great for Peter Jackson to put his name on such a wonderful and groundbreaking film. And no, I'm not only stating budget as a reason, I'm stating vision. As that's what is all about, to state it better, if Peter Jackson didn't have access to such huge budgets he wouldn't be so popular. And forward thinking has nothing to do with budget, as that was exactly my point and with the cases I've shown prove it.

The Hobbit is not growing in ticket sales. The first week was enormous, in part due to a lot of screening venues and to the popularity of LOTR, is also Christmas (a very hot season for blockbusters) and its a action/fantasy movie. The second week has only increased by 15%! Also, a lot of studios backet out from releases on the same week of The Hobbit, leaving The Hobbit to be the only big budget/popular film to open that week. When I say the public has spoken, I mean the hfr, and only very, very few people are seeing the film in this hfr presentation. And the ones that have, I can probably say that 90% of them didn't think it was a better experience, and at least half of those people actually hated it. So yes, in my opinion the public has spoken. Just surf the reviews on the net for two minutes and you'll get the point.

When I mentioned Avatar I didn't mention the 3D presentation, I mentioned the motion capture and the interaction of these characters with the 100% fabricated world. No one complained about that!

This argument gets old very quickly. To me its looks like TV, like a behind the scenes video, now that's just what my eyes tell me it is. If thats because that's what I'm used to associate with 50i or 60i so be it. One more reason not to use it in the first place! But I can give you the exact same explanation if Peter Jackson had made The Hobbit on a iPhone. Association or not, some things are just to obvious too even try analyze.

But hey, this is just my opinion, some people love it. And I'm good with that, I don't care really. What I do care is when people say I'm wrong when I say I didn't like it!

 

[Scott Crawley]

This argument gets old very quickly. To me its looks like TV, like a behind the scenes video, now that's just what my eyes tell me it is. If thats because that's what I'm used to associate with 50i or 60i so be it. One more reason not to use it in the first place! But I can give you the exact same explanation if Peter Jackson had made The Hobbit on a iPhone. Association or not, some things are just to obvious too even try analyze.

But hey, this is just my opinion, some people love it. And I'm good with that, I don't care really. What I do care is when people say I'm wrong when I say I didn't like it!

I'm not making qualitative judgements of people's opinions. Whether you like it or hate it is of no consequence to me so I have no reason to try and change that opinion. I am not formulating arguments to persuade anyone.

What I am trying to do is understand why you and the general audience feel the way you do, so that understanding can inform my own creative decisions. To that end, thank you for explaining your perceptions.

Edit: ...and yes, the TV association may prove to be reason enough not to use 48fps in cinema. OTOH people may come to make new associations and the format could become more viable over time. That is what I am currently thinking anyway.

I am also thinking that I will skip 48fps this time around. If I can remain as neutral as possible while considering people's opinions it should serve my analysis well.

 

[Dave Blackham]

Other than frame rate.

What do people feel about the images from Epic in this movie ?

 

[António Fagundes]

Other than frame rate.

What do people feel about the images from Epic in this movie ?

I will have to go and see it again but in 24p, because in the HFR presentation the lighting wasn't good at all, especially in the first half of the film. Some people here have mentioned that this is not the case in the 24p version. Which I presume the lighting must be top noch as well as the Epic for sure.

 

[BrendanLeahy]

The movie is making an ocean of money. In that respect, the public has spoken, and made it the #1 movie in America for the second week in a row.

I'm not saying that profit is proof of artistic or even technical success, but it's clear to me that the public does not care about HFR either way. They simply want to see an entertaining movie, and I think The Hobbit is delivering on that. $250M worldwide in 10 days... I think it's almopst guaranteed to make $1B, regardless of any opinion you or I might have.

Let's also keep in mind Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part 2 made $340.9 million for its worldwide opening. People will go see anything. Are there statistics of how much money the HFR theaters have made in comparison to the rest?

 

[Brandon J.F.]

The Hobbit is not growing in ticket sales. The first week was enormous, in part due to a lot of screening venues and to the popularity of LOTR, is also Christmas (a very hot season for blockbusters) and its a action/fantasy movie. The second week has only increased by 15%!

The Hobbit has grossed $433,858,000 in 10 days. You seem to think that's a disappointing number. What would have been good? Give me a number.

 

[BrendanLeahy]

I will have to go and see it again but in 24p, because in the HFR presentation the lighting wasn't good at all, especially in the first half of the film. Some people here have mentioned that this is not the case in the 24p version. Which I presume the lighting must be top noch as well as the Epic for sure.

Ditto. I really think that if others shoot 48p, they'll need to scale back on other departments (much like the jump from theater shows to motion pictures, you just can't light, act, etc. in an exaggerated fashion).

 

[António Fagundes]

The Hobbit has grossed $433,858,000 in 10 days. You seem to think that's a disappointing number. What would have been good? Give me a number.

I wonder where you got that number? For all I know it has grossed nearly $300,000.000 worldwide. Where did those extra $150,000.000 came from? But if you think that's amazing, compare it for example to the recent Skyfall. It grossed more in its first week than The Hobbit and it kept on growing on every week. Its now on the one billion mark. Avatar (again) grossed much less in its opening than The Hobbit, but one week later it had grossed $350,000.000 just in America! The Hobbit has grossed just shy of $150,000.000! Even Lord of the Rings did better business in its first week. believe me, $300,000.000 worldwide for a movie of this scale is not amazing. Its good, but not great. And I can almost guarantee that it won't pick up any more speed, I probably say it will gross $800,000.000 worldwide. Right now, The Hobbit is not picking up speed compared to other blockbusters, and probably that's because word of mouth is not helping...

Anyway, I was obviously taken out of context. When I said the public has spoken, I meant in relation to the HFR, I thought that was quite clear. Also if the movie is making money, its not because of its HFR presentation, as that is only showing in very few selected theaters. To be honest, I don't care how much money The Hobbit makes, as I'm not getting any of it. But The Hobbit its a film exclusively made to make money. So it should make money.

 

[Sverker Hahn]

i have not seen the Hobbit.

But I have seen many movies an a lot of television. I still cannot get the distinction between movie and TV. When seeing a movie on the TV, which feel am I supposed to get?

I also have not got an Epic or Scarlet (yet) but did think, before this thread, that maybe 48 fps could be something for me in the future nature movies.

Shall I buy an Epic for my nature shows at 48 fps or go for the Scarlet at 24 fps?

TIA / Sverker

 

[Brandon J.F.]

I wonder where you got that number? For all I know it has grossed nearly $300,000.000 worldwide. Where did those extra $150,000.000 came from?

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=hobbit.htm

But if you think that's amazing, compare it for example to the recent Skyfall. It grossed more in its first week than The Hobbit and it kept on growing on every week.

OK, let's compare:

Skyfall Nov 9–11 $88,364,714
The Hobbit Dec 14–16 $84,617,303

Yes, Skyfall $3,747,411 than The Hobbit.

Did Skyfall keep "growing on every week"? Hardly. It was -53.5% week 2 and continued to DECREASE every week never once going up. Source: http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=bond23.htm

Its now on the one billion mark.

Close. $974,272,000. Source: http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=main&id=bond23.htm

Avatar (again) grossed much less in its opening than The Hobbit, but one week later it had grossed $350,000.000 just in America!

Avatar grossed $77,025,481 it's opening weekend. I have no idea where you got the $350 million number from. Close, but you are $274,382,817 off. It grossed $75,617,183 it's second weekend. Source: http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=avatar.htm

The Hobbit has grossed just shy of $150,000.000! Even Lord of the Rings did better business in its first week.

Again, you are wrong. Return of the King (the highest grossing LOTR film) grossed $125,900,000 globally it's first weekend. The Hobbit $138,000,000. Source: http://boxofficemojo.com/intl/weekend/opening/

believe me, $300,000.000 worldwide for a movie of this scale is not amazing. Its good, but not great. And I can almost guarantee that it won't pick up any more speed, I probably say it will gross $800,000.000 worldwide. Right now, The Hobbit is not picking up speed compared to other blockbusters, and probably that's because word of mouth is not helping...

We've established the $300m number is wrong. You are saying it will probably gross $800,000,000.00 and that is NOT good?

Anyway, I was obviously taken out of context.

No, you weren't. You are stating myths as facts. I'm correcting you.

When I said the public has spoken, I meant in relation to the HFR....

Based on what?

Also if the movie is making money, its not because of its HFR presentation, as that is only showing in very few selected theaters. To be honest, I don't care how much money The Hobbit makes, its a film exclusively made to make money. So it should make money.

No one is saying it's making money from HFR presentation.

Honestly, I don't care either and I'm not even sure if I like HFR or not. I'm just correcting you because half of what you write and claim to be factual is totally wrong.

 

[António Fagundes]

Brandon, did it occur to you that I'm not seeing my numbers on Box Office Mojo? If it makes you happy to correct me on what you say is the truth, fill your boots mate, but I guess you're missing the point. But I fail to see where did I post wrong numbers, I'm not going to dispute this, all you did was correct slight numbers based on the website you use, again, I use a different one. So who's wrong?

 

[Scott Crawley]

I will have to go and see it again but in 24p, because in the HFR presentation the lighting wasn't good at all, especially in the first half of the film. Some people here have mentioned that this is not the case in the 24p version. Which I presume the lighting must be top noch as well as the Epic for sure.

This is all one film guys... They didn't relight and reshoot each scene for the different frame rates. The digital grade is unique for each version, but the physical lighting is the same, so how can the lighting of the 48 be amateur, bad or sit-com looking while the 24 and the 24 3D look fine?

 

[António Fagundes]

This is all one film guys... They didn't relight and reshoot each scene for the different frame rates. The digital grade is unique for each version, but the physical lighting is the same, so how can the lighting of the 48 be amateur, bad or sit-com looking while the 24 and the 24 3D look fine?

Exactly my question also. But some people, LaForet included mentioned this was actually the case. If it is, is strange, but it can also probably enlighten us a little more on the HFR influence on the lighting. Peter Jackson said he didn't change a thing for shooting HFR, did exactly as if he was shooting 24p. Is that maybe one of the reasons why it looks 'bad'?

 

[AndrewThomas]

I wonder where you got that number? For all I know it has grossed nearly $300,000.000 worldwide. Where did those extra $150,000.000 came from? But if you think that's amazing, compare it for example to the recent Skyfall. It grossed more in its first week than The Hobbit and it kept on growing on every week. Its now on the one billion mark. Avatar (again) grossed much less in its opening than The Hobbit, but one week later it had grossed $350,000.000 just in America! The Hobbit has grossed just shy of $150,000.000! Even Lord of the Rings did better business in its first week. believe me, $300,000.000 worldwide for a movie of this scale is not amazing. Its good, but not great. And I can almost guarantee that it won't pick up any more speed, I probably say it will gross $800,000.000 worldwide. Right now, The Hobbit is not picking up speed compared to other blockbusters, and probably that's because word of mouth is not helping...

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=hobbit.htm

The Hobbit will do 300 million in the U.S. and around a billion worldwide on the back of a much stronger foreign box office in the last 5 years. Calm down.

Brandon, did it occur to you that I'm not seeing my numbers on Box Office Mojo? If it makes you happy to correct me on what

you say is the truth, fill your boots mate, but I guess you're missing the point. But I fail to see where did I post wrong numbers, I'm not going to dispute this, all you did was correct slight numbers based on the website you use, again, I use a different one. So who's wrong?

Boxofficemojo gets it's numbers from Rentrak, the cinema industry's number tracker. BOM boxoffice numbers are unquestionably correct.

 

[Scott Crawley]

I also have not got an Epic or Scarlet (yet) but did think, before this thread, that maybe 48 fps could be something for me in the future nature movies.

Shall I buy an Epic for my nature shows at 48 fps or go for the Scarlet at 24 fps?

TIA / Sverker

Scarlet can record 48fps up to 3k if that is of use to you.

 

[Aaron Shirley]

I am also thinking that I will skip 48fps this time around. If I can remain as neutral as possible while considering people's opinions it should serve my analysis well.

Spoiler alert, Scott:
48fps looks just like 60i, so you've already seen the look unless you're like 10 years old.

 

[Scott Crawley]

Exactly my question also. But some people, LaForet included mentioned this was actually the case. If it is, is strange, but it can also probably enlighten us a little more on the HFR influence on the lighting. Peter Jackson said he didn't change a thing for shooting HFR, did exactly as if he was shooting 24p. Is that maybe one of the reasons why it looks 'bad'?

You've heard my theory of transference so I won't bore you by repeating it, but that is my working hypothesis.