The reason for the retro slickness? Producer Peter Jackson decided to shoot The Hobbit at 48 frames per second, as opposed to 24 frames per second, which has been industry standard pretty much since the dawn of time. E! Online quoted Jackson as saying that the higher frame rate makes the 3D picture “much more gentle on the eyes, without the strobing or as much flicker, and much less eye strain.”
That’s all well and good, but Jackson seems to have overlooked the fact that decades of watching movies at 24 frames per second makes any change in that paradigm extremely disorienting, especially given that higher frame rates are typically used for things like home video, soap operas and reality TV.
If you have ever watched TV on a set that has some kind of “smooth motion” feature enabled, you sort of know what this looks like. It’s a subtle change, but one that makes a huge difference. Your favourite shows all of a sudden look like amateur productions. It is very unpleasant.
With the decision to shoot at this higher frame rate, Jackson might be going one step too far in the name of 3D. People are already on the fence about 3D movies bastardising the traditions of cinema. Take away their beloved 24fps and they might revolt. [EOSHD & E! Online]
He should be able to convert down to 24 fps. After all not all cinemas can do 48 fps...
I think people should build a bridge. Many people have forgoten the reason for going to the movies is to be told a story. Not to mention the fact that I will be able to watch a 3d movie again. I havn't been to a 3d movie since Avatar thanks to the masive headache I get while watching them.
Hmmm...
Aren't IMAX 3D and IMAX HD at 48fps?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imax#Technical_aspects
I for one am looking forward to the added realism. I suspect that after the first 10-15 minutes, one will just get drawn in to the experience (that's happen to me with Avatar 3D), after which point going back to standard 24fps will seem blury.
I don't think IMAX HD is really used anywhere. The 3D version is why Peter J short the Hobbit at 48fps in the first place by the sounds of things, but I don't know if 3D IMAX films suffer the same problems as daytime soaps.
The people whinging about this must be the same people that think TV's under a certain size should be SD.
it was a gamble. it's weird though that people turn on that frame doubling thing on when watching their TV but hate it in the cinema. at least in the cinema it won't be fake. I'm not sure I'll like it. might see it in 2d instead.
I've experienced that disorientation a few times. It's just something you need to get used to and the higher frame rate + the higher resolution are only going to be a step forward in the longterm.
when did home movies use a high frame rate?? if anything that were at 12.5 fps. Faster is better
Yeah not too sure how the reference about home video being at a fast rate than 24fps is valid.
If anything for example in PAL regions they would be shooting at 50i which is interlaced and through deinterlacing it would come back down to 25fps when it's progressive. (This is done in movie filming anyway)
Please explain editor.
25 > 24 (not enough to worry about but still true, for the sake of accuracy anyway)
We typically view our home videos and 'live' style programs on our televisions at 50i (not de-interlaced and viewed progressively). Yes, some consumer cameras can capture at 24p or 25p, but so few are set that way that it would be an exception to the norm. I accept that the terminology is not accurate in this article's point but the general concept is. While we view our home movies (and 'live' style programs) we see 50 moments in time captured per second. In 50i it is split into fields and shouldn't be considered the format's frame rate rather the field rate, but the "refresh rate" of moments in time captured is still 50 per second. More than cinema's 24. So, point is in essence still valid.
What is done in movie filming? Deinterlacing? By actual professionals?
Give me 48fps any day. Actually, 48fps and 4K would definitely encourage me to go to the cinemas more, instead of waiting for it on Bluray. Sometimes 24fps can be really jarring on large vista pans on the big screen. LOTR is a good example of that.
I always turn of the motion control when watching films, it's fine on TV but films lose their majesty, they just look cheap.
For everyone who is saying big deal obviously don;t have a high definition TV and tried to watch a movie with softmotion enabled.
IT LOOKS TERRIBLE!!
"softmotion" does not increase the framerate, interlaced footage emulates 50fps because its smoother and this just splits the fields in a different way (you retard).
48fps progressive scan will be awesome, PJ knows what he's doing.
1. Most of the motion smoothing / frame interpolation on tv's I've seen is terrible. I can't describe what it is, but it looks unnatural 2. I like how you call someone else a retard when you don't know what you are talking about.
I too don't see how 'too real' is an issue. Anything to get rid of the flicker during fast motion is welcomed by me. I would prefer if more emphasis is put on 4k cinema as opposed to half arsed 3d. I've found Passive 3d display not so great.
Jackson has been fairly clear that it takes some adjusting. We're talking about a 'look' that's been established via 80 years of 24fps cinema. The change here is on par with the switch from silent film to sound, and black & white to colour. It will feel strange and new, and not 'like cinema' at first.
The CinemaCon viewers also saw only 10 minutes of disconnected, unfinished footage. After more post-prodution, colour grading, etc, and watching full scenes instead of short snippets, I imagine it won't take too long to get used to.
In any case - not every cinema will be showing it in 48fps. You'll be able to see it in 2D 24fps if you really want.
"decades of watching movies at 24 frames per second makes any change in that paradigm extremely disorienting."
Most of my screen-time is spent with videogames running at ~60fps. Normally a film will suck me in but whenever there's a long pan or gradual movement, it looks like someone's "running reality" with a shitty graphics card. Being dumped into a scene where the framerate is so obviously poor is jarring!
"Your favourite shows all of a sudden look like amateur productions."
This is because tweening that TVs use isn't the same as actually having a high-framerate video.
Whenever some film snob complains that the picture is "too real" I can't help but scoff. How do these people handle actual reality passing by their eyes at roughly 200fps? Is real life just "too real" for them?
"most of my *entertainment* screen time" - I spend my days at work in front of a PC but I don't think this is the same thing!
From what I remember when the 48fps was first announced, the reason it was 48 and not 24fps was due to filming in 3D. It had to do with the shutter synchronising for the two cameras (being shot in 3D and all) or something like that. Can anyone confirm or expand on that?
Keep it going PJ, we need to move away from the crazy 24fps. Anything with motion needs higher frame rates and I'd like to see it up around 60, but down the track we already have 5K cameras than can shoot 120fps. I wonder if we'll ever be able to shoot variable rate footage, based on the motion content?
Variable? Are you mad daffy? Could you imagine framerates changing between scenes.. or even shots? That would be as disorienting as... well... basically what your horrible "Intelligent Frame Creation" (or whatever name your favourite TV manufacterer wants to call it) does right now. Ever watched a Harry Potter film with that garbage switched on? One slower-moving shot will be silky-smooth, and the next that features quick-moving objects will strobe -- it's a truly awful viewing experience.
I for one find it hard to watch even 2d movies with fast action sequences on TFT screens. The frame-rate is just too low and everything looks jerky and confusing. Can anyone here honestly say that playing a computer game at 24fps is desirable? Why should movies be different (aside from the fact that we have gotten used to worse)? Now halve that effective framerate (per eye) for 3d and the result is predictably a bloody nightmare. Considering the capabilities of the human visual system we really should be aiming for something more like 60fps PER EYE, i.e. 120fps.
-In other news "retina" i-thing users complain that everything "looks to real" and demand lower rez. screens so that they can clearly make out each reassuring pixel..