The Hobbit at 48fps...

[Mark Phelan]

No, actually science is just full of theories waiting for someone to disprove them and that will in turn change the scientific theory. Just theories here. I am only linking this article as I thought it was an interesting take. It might have some flaws, but what cannot be denied is that the majority of moviegoers DONT BUY 48fps when trying to believe a fictional story on a screen....for whatever reason.

Are you saying that isnt true either? All of these opinions are irrelevant?

No Paul, I'm not. I'm just not agreeing with you. I liked the movie and enjoyed it. Plan on going back again to see it in 2D so I don't have to wear the silly glasses and wish it were in 48fps 4K.

 

[Paul Harb]

Im glad you liked it and it worked for you. What bums me out are all these people coming on here and belittling an honest reaction by most moviegoers with comments like "they dont bite, they lost their dentures" to describe people that didnt like it.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

the majority of moviegoers DONT BUY 48fps when trying to believe a fictional story on a screen....for whatever reason.

It's easy to explain this. People get used to things. If 24 fps is "movie magic", if that is the "color" of this type of art, then when you change it, people will have trouble accepting it. Fact is that most regular people love 48 fps while most professionals hate it. Why?
Because professionals work with this "color" all the time, it's their framework and changing it feels wrong. It's like a regular person driving a regular car, changing the car will feel different but it's still just another car. For a professional racer a change of cars could mean the difference between driving on the road and crashing the car.

It also has to do with what feels real or not. People have, without knowing, been trained to see bad quality DV, high framerate and "television quality" as reality. News and programs show the real world (objective truth not counted into this) and the quality of those images are anchored to our perception of reality. What happens then is that when we go into a movie theatre and see 24 fps nicely lit cinematography, we are used to accept that as fiction. This is why the wave of "Blair Which Project" films were made. All those films was made like that to enhance the sense of reality, it was supposed to feel like reality. People actually questioned if it was real footage or not, something that wouldn't happen with 24 fps cinema.

So what is this "new" 48 fps? It's a way to put a little reality into that nicely lit cinematography. But sure it puts people off. We cannot accept it as reality and we can't accept it as fiction, so in this limbo we either hate it or love it.
It is a matter of getting used to it, but it also puts alot of pressure on art departments, set designers and cinematographers. The places in The Hobbit that didn't work was the places with the most common things we know, like in the Shire. There, we could see the world as it looks like on set, it's hard to color grade away reality that much. My opinion is that when we entered the caves or the night woods we had a better time accepting 48 fps due to the fact that fiction overwhelmed the reality.

So, where this limbo is going to lean twords will decide the fate of 48 fps. But in my opinion, it's "made for" 3D. It doesn't work in 2D, it's not meant for that. And working with 3D 48 fps demands a lot of new things from the filmmakers.

I for one was positively surprised by it, I thought I would hate it, but I must say I did like it to some degree. I don't like it in certain areas like described above, but it wasn't that awful as I thought it would be.

 

[Jeremiah Kuehne]

Here's a thought that I had..did anyone else think that some of the real costumes used in the movie looked less realistic than the CGI did? I was actually rather impressed with the CGI even though some of the animation on the CG characters (for example, Smaug's tail..) leaved a bit to be desired.

 

[Carlos Reyes]

The CGI fire didnt really work for me in the beginning, but as I mentioned earlier I took friends who were unaware it was HFR and they said afterwards it was the best 3D experience they've ever had. For 3D I'm a fan of it. Everyone in the theatre I was in left talking about how great the movie was. We gotta give PJ and the crew a break here I think, I know HFR isnt anything new but this hasnt really ever been done the way they've done it and for the first time around I think they did an amazing job.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

The CGI fire didnt really work for me in the beginning, but as I mentioned earlier I took friends who were unaware it was HFR and they said afterwards it was the best 3D experience they've ever had. For 3D I'm a fan of it. Everyone in the theatre I was in left talking about how great the movie was. We gotta give PJ and the crew a break here I think, I know HFR isnt anything new but this hasnt really ever been done the way they've done it and for the first time around I think they did an amazing job.

What CGI fire?

 

[Carlos Reyes]

When the dragon attacks in the beginning

 

[Gabe Conroy]

No, actually science is just full of theories waiting for someone to disprove them and that will in turn change the scientific theory. Just theories here. I am only linking this article as I thought it was an interesting take. It might have some flaws, but what cannot be denied is that the majority of moviegoers DONT BUY 48fps when trying to believe a fictional story on a screen....for whatever reason.

Are you saying that isnt true either? All of these opinions are irrelevant?

Scientific theories are supported by well documented evidence and solid logic. Some random BS and opinions with a few logical fallacies thrown in for good measure is NOT SCIENCE.

 

[paulherrin]

Im glad you liked it and it worked for you. What bums me out are all these people coming on here and belittling an honest reaction by most moviegoers with comments like "they dont bite, they lost their dentures" to describe people that didnt like it.

paul (cool name by the way) - and everybody else for that matter. my sincere apologies for some abrasiveness. i don't mean to belittle anybody. the reality is i'm just trying to figure it all out just like everyone else. i'm just a young buck thrashing about now & again - apologize if i caught anybody with an antler. if the film taught me one thing it's about the virtuous power of empathy and the wealth of an initiated brotherhood.

the loss of teeth is an archetypical manifestation of the fear of change and the second law of thermodynamics (or entropy) which states that physical matter is moving from order to chaos. this is the unknown passage through life and death. i remember playing with my loose teeth as a child. but i did not want them to go. at all. my mouth is gonna look weird! it's gonna hurt my head! and then i heard the story of the tooth fairy...

the tooth fairy is a beautiful woman who comes softly whilst we slumber and gently slides the old tooth from beneath our pillow. and because we've given it up as an offering, she leaves us a magical coin that shines in the morning sun.

this does not replace our tooth immediately, but it calms our anxieties. and then, over time, a new tooth is formed which one day must go again.

 

[paulherrin]

so that should do for story-time, let's talk about science

my understanding, as paul hinted at, is that our science is a particular way of thinking primarily defined by the greek school of philosophical skepticism that's been heavily influenced by literary analysis of objective, verifiable, repeatable human experience. out of necessity it is not designed or capable as a system of evaluating certain experiences that are subjective or once-in-a-lifetime events, etc. the social sciences (and their friends on the fringe) have attempted to quantitatively and/or qualitatively analyze this wider range with varying levels of success. what we think of as science is not the ultimate form. just like any institution, when it becomes dogmatic rather than transformative, it must let go through the passage of death to give birth and life to a new form. what we're talking about here in many ways falls within this grey area and illuminates the entrenched ideologies of our time. whew, did we make it out of that? good.

now. what we have is an ever-changing, growing, transforming reality that necessitates an organically developing model. the geo-centric cosmology (literally 'world-view') worked surprisingly well during a certain period of linear, human time - that is how and why it came to be, because it was helpful. but it was a working-model. a prototype. a red-camera that is constantly being upgraded with firmware and hardware. this wiki-style method is the current shift in how we're able to create sustainable institutions - precisely because they are not set in stone, but actually architecturally structured to accommodate constant renovations. the letter kills, but the wind breathes life [in the fire].

so, what does this have to do with 48 cameras and 48 frames?

storytelling is the oldest art. it sprang forth from the flames of fire. it has always had to do with the light's relationship to darkness. it is the ultimate question. the sacred fire around which our ancestors told story is the action of telling that continues on today in many forms, all valid. but the ultimate use of today's tools and technological craft in storytelling is in the sight & sound of the cinema - the greek theatre mk. V [greek, roman, shakespearean, broadway, cinema]. this is where story craft, spectacular experience, and psycho-spiritual impact come together. and it is moving and weaving like the flames of the fire. it must change. it must adapt to the environment in which it finds itself, balancing levels of fuel, oxygen, and heat within systemic chain-reactions. the power of the fire is a creative-destructive energy that consumes and refines. it is the forge of the bronze and iron age that propels 'wise man' towards his destiny. let us once again gather around to peer into the light of the fire. let the phoenix rise from the ashes.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

I do wonder if one of the problems I have with 3D is that it exists somewhere between 2D and complete immersion. In other words, it 's more dimensional than 2D but you are still aware of the trick and hence it leaves one not fully immersed. I admit that the issues I have with the technique used in The Hobbit come down to personal aesthetics. Call it conditioning, call it whatever you want I'm not totally disagreeing with that. But that "conditioning" left me less than fulfilled with this movie. I will see the 2D 24fps version as a comparison, but I have to think it's not that easy to come away with a true analysis because the movie was designed around the 3D HFR approach. So there may have been many choices made for that purpose that would not have been made had this been a 2D, 24fps movie. I will see it nonetheless to have the reference point.

I just want to clarify too that I am not angry at Peter Jackson for attempting this. Pioneers don't become so by sitting on the sidelines wondering if something would work, they actually do it and let the cards fall where they may. I'm happy he has done this, and I'm happy that James Cameron is doing what he is doing. It educates me.

And by the end of the movie, I had started to clear my mind of the distractions and focus on the story and characters. And to embrace the things that were working well for me. I will see the next two films without hesitation and it will be interesting to see if I notice any changes in my experience watching those movies.

 

[paulherrin]

I do wonder if one of the problems I have with 3D is that it exists somewhere between 2D and complete immersion. In other words, it 's more dimensional than 2D but you are still aware of the trick and hence it leaves one not fully immersed. I admit that the issues I have with the technique used in The Hobbit come down to personal aesthetics. Call it conditioning, call it whatever you want I'm not totally disagreeing with that. But that "conditioning" left me less than fulfilled with this movie. I will see the 2D 24fps version as a comparison, but I have to think it's not that easy to come away with a true analysis because the movie was designed around the 3D HFR approach. So there may have been many choices made for that purpose that would not have been made had this been a 2D, 24fps movie. I will see it nonetheless to have the reference point.

I just want to clarify too that I am not angry at Peter Jackson for attempting this. Pioneers don't become so by sitting on the sidelines wondering if something would work, they actually do it and let the cards fall where they may. I'm happy he has done this, and I'm happy that James Cameron is doing what he is doing. It educates me.

And by the end of the movie, I had started to clear my mind of the distractions and focus on the story and characters. And to embrace the things that were working well for me. I will see the next two films without hesitation and it will be interesting to see if I notice any changes in my experience watching those movies.

appreciate your thoughtfulness, steve. it's dialogues like this that help us build an understanding of what's really going on. there are some serious amounts of neural rewiring that have to take place. it's not just about the physiology of seeing but also in the way we think about the way we're seeing. all that takes time. i wish this could have been nurtured in a transitionary period, but it is what it is and we're getting thrown into fire to fend for ourselves here.

it is my perception that those that are opposed to digital filmmaking and/or 3D technologies are likely opposed to high framerates - for any number of philosophical and/or physiological reasons. it also seems that exposure to mixed formats at an earlier stage of development vs conditioned neurological response may be an extremely important factor. just a hypothesis based on the subjective data we're looking at here and what we know about brain functions.

one of the things your referring to is the so-called 'uncanny valley'. peter and james are aware of this and can see it. apparently, robert zemeckis cannot. it is an extremely challenging feat to overcome. the gollum scene transcended technology. await the awards. weta did some serious work in a serious amount of time. some of it was rushed, but the most important stuff was amazing. i don't think that photo-realism is the ultimate goal. the closer we get the more we will experiment with hyper-realism, surrealism, magical realism, etc. what peter jackson is doing is magical realism. i love it. but it is a monumental shift in seeing. that being said, i believe in the resilient power of the brain to rewire itself. but that can be a difficult thing. i believe that the stories themselves help do this for us. so my prescription is to listen to the stories... and maybe go see the hobbit again man, somebody over there needs to be paying me to say this stuff.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Just saw it this morning in 3D Digital IMAX HFR... as for the 48 fps look, I got used to it about 45 minutes into the movie, but getting used to it wasn't the same thing as enjoying it. I felt it improved sweeping helicopter shots and fast action scenes by reducing judder, but otherwise, it took a long time to shake the feeling that I was watching something shot in 1080i for TV. Technically, I felt it improved the 3D effect by reducing ghosting from moving objects, and it was generally a good 3D experience.

 

[paulherrin]

David, how did you feel about the lighting/cinematography/tech in regards to the storytelling?

 

[Shawn Nelson]

Just saw it this morning in 3D Digital IMAX HFR... as for the 48 fps look, I got used to it about 45 minutes into the movie, but getting used to it wasn't the same thing as enjoying it. I felt it improved sweeping helicopter shots and fast action scenes by reducing judder, but otherwise, it took a long time to shake the feeling that I was watching something shot in 1080i for TV. Technically, I felt it improved the 3D effect by reducing ghosting from moving objects, and it was generally a good 3D experience.

David, did the simple movement of say, Bilbo walking in Bag End feel "sped up" to you? It really did for me, like they were moving faster and more jittery than anything real, almost reminiscent of the movement in a Buster Keaton flick.

 

[paulherrin]

David, did the simple movement of say, Bilbo walking in Bag End feel "sped up" to you? It really did for me, like they were moving faster and more jittery than anything real, almost reminiscent of the movement in a Buster Keaton flick.

everybody is talking about this sequence at the beginning. that supports the theory that it's your eye/brain getting used to it, don't you think? everybody is remembering something strange at the beginning, but okay/cool by the end... no?

 

[mikeburton]

For me watching The Hobbit gave me the same feeling of watching Public Enemies, but amplified and worse. All the respect in the world to put a lot on the line like he did with this movie but like David mentioned just because we may end up getting used to it does not mean it was a pleasant experience. I actually really want to see the 24fps film now for comparison but I just can't bare to sit through another 3 hours of it again. The movie didn't really start to get interesting until the scene with Gollum.

 

[Jeff J Daniels]

I was going to make the same point Paul. The opening scenes were the most jarring, as I wasn't "used" to the framerate yet.
I intend to see the film again, as I know for a fact I was more focused on how different things looked in 48 than I was on what was happening in the story.

What happens then is that when we go into a movie theatre and see 24 fps nicely lit cinematography, we are used to accept that as fiction. This is why the wave of "Blair Which Project" films were made. All those films was made like that to enhance the sense of reality, it was supposed to feel like reality. People actually questioned if it was real footage or not, something that wouldn't happen with 24 fps cinema.

I think it's important to point out that the majority of these "Blair Witch/Found Footage" films are set in the real world. It's fun to imagine or question if these stories really happened.
My personal opinion is that HFR was not a good choice for the world of Tolkien, simply because that world isn't real. And when you show it to me more "life-like" I wasn't able to lose myself in the world.
I think this "new" framerate definitely has a place in the future of cinema, just not sure where that is exactly.

I'm not a fan of 3D, but this was some of the best looking 3D I've seen. I think the 48fps is what made the 3D more enjoyable.

 

[paulherrin]

For me watching The Hobbit gave me the same feeling of watching Public Enemies, but amplified and worse. All the respect in the world to put a lot on the line like he did with this movie but like David mentioned just because we may end up getting used to it does not mean it was a pleasant experience. I actually really want to see the 24fps film now for comparison but I just can't bare to sit through another 3 hours of it again. The movie didn't really start to get interesting until the scene with Gollum.

yeah, i'd say if you went all the way til that point in the movie without being interested or engaged... the 48fps becomes a pretty irrelevant factor, no? suspension of disbelief, or what i would call 'listening' is kind of an all-or-nothing decision. engagement is a shared responsibility between teller and listener (director/audience). it's like an unspoken covenant or contract. you're agreeing to give it a fair shot when you go in and give it your full attention. anything less is a breach of contract. you don't have to go in, and you can leave or go to sleep anytime you want. you're not strapped to the chair, you're not taxed for the movie, nor are your eyeballs forced open.

 

[paulherrin]

I was going to make the same point Paul. The opening scenes were the most jarring, as I wasn't "used" to the framerate yet.
I intend to see the film again, as I know for a fact I was more focused on how different things looked in 48 than I was on what was happening in the story.



I think it's important to point out that the majority of these "Blair Witch/Found Footage" films are set in the real world. It's fun to imagine or question if these stories really happened.
My personal opinion is that HFR was not a good choice for the world of Tolkien, simply because that world isn't real. And when you show it to me more "life-like" I wasn't able to lose myself in the world.
I think this "new" framerate definitely has a place in the future of cinema, just not sure where that is exactly.

I'm not a fan of 3D, but this was some of the best looking 3D I've seen. I think the 48fps is what made the 3D more enjoyable.

i think the fantasy/magical realism that peter jackson is going for warrants this a creative choice. i've never had a dream in 24p.