The Hobbit (2012 - 2014)

edited July 2014 in General Movies & TV Posts: 5,767
Peter Jackson says some interesting things about shooting at 48fps. Unlike 3D, this seems really to advance filmmaking in general. I´m very interested in watching the result.

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=76341


Peter Jackson on Shooting The Hobbit at 48 fps
Source: Peter Jackson April 12, 2011

Peter Jackson has updated his Facebook page with a post talking about why they are shooting The Hobbit films at 48 frames per second (fps) versus the usual 24 fps. You can read the post below and view a couple of new photos from the set:

Time for an update. Actually, we've been intending to kick off with a video, which is almost done, so look out for that in the next day or two. In the meantime, I thought I'd address the news that has been reported about us shooting THE HOBBIT at 48 frames per second, and explain to you what my thoughts are about this.

We are indeed shooting at the higher frame rate. The key thing to understand is that this process requires both shooting and projecting at 48 fps, rather than the usual 24 fps (films have been shot at 24 frames per second since the late 1920's). So the result looks like normal speed, but the image has hugely enhanced clarity and smoothness. Looking at 24 frames every second may seem ok--and we've all seen thousands of films like this over the last 90 years--but there is often quite a lot of blur in each frame, during fast movements, and if the camera is moving around quickly, the image can judder or "strobe."


Shooting and projecting at 48 fps does a lot to get rid of these issues. It looks much more lifelike, and it is much easier to watch, especially in 3-D. We've been watching HOBBIT tests and dailies at 48 fps now for several months, and we often sit through two hours worth of footage without getting any eye strain from the 3-D. It looks great, and we've actually become used to it now, to the point that other film experiences look a little primitive. I saw a new movie in the cinema on Sunday and I kept getting distracted by the juddery panning and blurring. We're getting spoilt!

Originally, 24 fps was chosen based on the technical requirements of the early sound era. I suspect it was the minimum speed required to get some audio fidelity out of the first optical sound tracks. They would have settled on the minimum speed because of the cost of the film stock. 35mm film is expensive, and the cost per foot (to buy the negative stock, develop it and print it), has been a fairly significant part of any film budget.

So we have lived with 24 fps for 9 decades--not because it's the best film speed (it's not by any stretch), but because it was the cheapest speed to achieve basic acceptable results back in 1927 or whenever it was adopted.

None of this thinking is new. Doug Trumbull developed and promoted a 60 frames per second process called ShowScan about 30 years ago and that looked great. Unfortunately it was never adopted past theme park use. I imagine the sheer expense of burning through expensive film stock at the higher speed (you are charged per foot of film, which is about 18 frames), and the projection difficulties in cinemas, made it tough to use for "normal" films, despite looking amazing. Actually, if anybody has been on the Star Tours ride at Disneyland, you've experienced the life like quality of 60 frames per second. Our new King Kong attraction at Universal Studios also uses 60 fps.


Now that the world's cinemas are moving towards digital projection, and many films are being shot with digital cameras, increasing the frame rate becomes much easier. Most of the new digital projectors are capable of projecting at 48 fps, with only the digital servers needing some firmware upgrades. We tested both 48 fps and 60 fps. The difference between those speeds is almost impossible to detect, but the increase in quality over 24 fps is significant.

Film purists will criticize the lack of blur and strobing artifacts, but all of our crew--many of whom are film purists--are now converts. You get used to this new look very quickly and it becomes a much more lifelike and comfortable viewing experience. It's similar to the moment when vinyl records were supplanted by digital CDs. There's no doubt in my mind that we're heading towards movies being shot and projected at higher frame rates.

Warner Bros. have been very supportive, and allowed us to start shooting THE HOBBIT at 48 fps, despite there never having been a wide release feature film filmed at this higher frame rate. We are hopeful that there will be enough theaters capable of projecting 48 fps by the time The Hobbit comes out where we can seriously explore that possibility with Warner Bros. However, while it's predicted that there may be over 10,000 screens capable of projecting THE HOBBIT at 48 fps by our release date in Dec, 2012, we don’t yet know what the reality will be. It is a situation we will all be monitoring carefully. I see it as a way of future-proofing THE HOBBIT. Take it from me--if we do release in 48 fps, those are the cinemas you should watch the movie in. It will look terrific!


Read more: Peter Jackson on Shooting The Hobbit at 48 fps - ComingSoon.net http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=76341#ixzz1JLbFIKly
«13456715

Comments

  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,286
    This does sound like a much better advancement than 3D that's for sure. Very much looking forward to The Hobbit and I trust Jackson will not give us the Lucas treatment.
  • Posts: 1,973
    Quoting boldfinger: Peter Jackson says some interesting things about shooting at 48fps. Unlike 3D, this seems really to advance filmmaking in general. I´m very interested in watching the result.
    I'm very interested in seeing how it looks and if this will become more and more mainstream. The whole 3D thing just isn't that interesting imo, other than for Pixar-type movies. Being a huge fan of the Tolkien books, and of the movies as well I will certainly be there opening day, and still hoping the Silmarillion somehow gets made as a series somehow, someday.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited April 2011 Posts: 4,399
    i agree... it'll be interesting to see how this increased FPS will look - as i have personally never seen it before - i am just used to the 24 FPS....

    and yes, i also agree with you Luds on 3D.. it's old hat in my opinion.... the hook for this expensive addition to film is to make you feel "immersed in the action" but...

    1.) there is too much darn flicker

    2.) the 3D experience is only confined to the dimension of the screen which it's being projected on to - meaning that you can't turn your head and see stuff fly past you, it's only ever directly in front of the screen at all times...

    3.) our eyes cannot see foreground/middle-ground/background all in focus at the same time - something that 3D does, at least the films I have seen recently - everything is in focus, not just the subject matter.. so in my opinion, this does not enhance the perception of "being there" - it only adds further distraction..

    4.) while 3D does have it's uses for action heavy films - I have yet to see it's purpose for drama... 3D is purely genre specific - in no way, at least in my opinion can it improve on comedy or drama, to make a scene more emotional - even if you did (and as it the point with 3D today) you spend half your time being distracted by the effects, that you start to lose sight of the story as a whole..

    bottom line, 3D is a gimmick - an expensive gimmick, that is sadly being forced onto us now that they are making 3D TVs.... (not sure if i can say this here but..) only douche-bags sit at home, by themselves, with their stupid 3D glasses, and watch their 3D TV.... it makes about as much sense as motion control gaming by yourself - sorry, don't see the need - am i really going to be jumping around in front of my TV at 3 in the morning by myself, in a t-shirt and boxers?? No.... i apply the same principles here with 3D.... it's a fad that will hopefully be shown the door soon (though it likely won't) - because it adds absolutely nothing of creative value to a story... and telling stories is what film making is about, not about how many digital effects can we cram in so the kiddies have something to spooge to when they get home..... the only thing that 3D does, is mask just how terrible some movies really are..
  • Posts: 1,973
    Quoting haserot: (not sure if i can say this here but..) only douche-bags sit at home, by themselves, with their stupid 3D glasses, and watch their 3D TV....
    :-))
    I agree with the whole gimmick aspect. I like 3D cartoons, to me 3D is something that goes well with CGI, and highly targeted to the younger demographic. I have yet to see sports in 3D, and again, the major turn off is to wear these stupid glasses. If I'm to watch 3D TV, first of all, I'd need 3D networks and there are very few. Secondly, when the technology for 3D TV without glasses gets by, I'll reconsider.

    Now back to the 48fps, I think that this will be a huge improvement and really look forwards to seeing the result for a major motion picture. This is something that everyone can adapt to, films and television and will increase quality across the board.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    exactly... our eyes don't process at 24 FPS, why should films have to?

    though i do agree, there might be some of that "charm" lost in the transfer if this does indeed go over well - i don't know how to describe it... but i am all for increasing the quality of film - but i feel the industry needs to worry about improving quality behind the camera, as well as the footage itself lol.
  • doubleonothingdoubleonothing Los Angeles Moderator
    Posts: 864
    Well, it'll look amazing but mean that the budget explodes. Smaller, indie films are never gonna be able to afford to shoot at 48fps. Depending on the shooting ratio, these films could become extremely expensive to produce.

    Very much looking forward to seeing the result, however.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    @DoubleONothing

    using standard film, yes - but with DSLRs it's as easy as a quick setting change in the options menu... and with more and more film making cameras becoming digital, it'll be just as simple... and if we reach a point where projectors are purely digital - then it's as easy as loading up file, instead of reels..

  • Posts: 1,856
    I think the 48 frames a second thing is good (:-D ) but about the 3D (X()

    1:4 people get head aches by watching 3-d, and most people get motion sickness Goodbye a good portion of profits and as haserot pointed out about 3-D TVs. I was in best buy in june and i put the glasses on and no 3-D. A shop keeper came up to me and said "To get it to work you've got to do this and that and that and this" I just walked off. :-?
  • doubleonothingdoubleonothing Los Angeles Moderator
    Posts: 864
    Quoting haserot: using standard film, yes - but with DSLRs it's as easy as a quick setting change in the options menu... and with more and more film making cameras becoming digital, it'll be just as simple... and if we reach a point where projectors are purely digital - then it's as easy as loading up file, instead of reels..
    Ah, how times have changed. I'm clearly thinking too old school. Digital really is looking more and more like the way to go.

    Still, whilst the majority of projectors aren't digital right now, you'd still have a lot of processing that would end up being very costly.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited April 2011 Posts: 15,534
    Digital projectors are very costly. It's a big investment from multiplexes to equip 4,5,6,7,+ screens with each projector costing $100,000.
  • Posts: 1,032
    Very interested in seeing the final product, @48fps. Kudos to Jackson for trying something new.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    @DoubleONothing

    Yes, that will be the costly part - as 24 FPS is still the film processing standard....

    but yes, digital IS the way to go anymore - #1, you don't have to worry about wasting film stock, instead your simply dealing with memory space on a card.. #2, editing is much easier to do on a computer, than on a big cutting machine (unless you've used one for years and are more proficient at it) - but not only that, it's easier to color correction digital video than to do it using film.. #3, it really saves on cost - again, don't have to worry about annoying film stock, until your ready to print it out for theater use..
  • doubleonothingdoubleonothing Los Angeles Moderator
    Posts: 864
    Yes, I can see all the advantages. I've seen the difference in shooting on digital and on film and the differences with editing, too. No question digital is quicker and easier. Does it have the same look and feel? Well, that's up for debate. There's something about the way film looks that is difficult to emulate on digital. I agree you can do some interesting stuff with colour correction, too. But I somehow feel making something so easy to use does breed a certain degree of contempt for the process. Something of the artfulness and craftsmanship is lost, I think. But that's just me. I actually like seeing the differences in film stock. I remember watching Spy Game and noticing how Scott used reversal stock for all the flashbacks. Nice touch. It gave it that slightly washed out look. I'm sure there's a colour emulator for that on some computer somewhere, but I guess it just reminds me of how the tech is so fast changing. It's like when you see a tape cassette icon on phones to tell you you have a message. Why do we need an analogue icon to inform us of a digital recording? How many kids have grown up with that analogue tech anyway? It's because we hold on to the idea of tape, even after it's long gone. Same goes with the analogue shutter sound on your phone's camera. Why? It's not taking a picture that way, but we need the sound to assure us that it's worked.

    Anyway, rant over.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,534
    Movie reels are a disaster to the environement, and I wouldn't drop a single tear if movies were only available on digital support for movie theaters.

    Every movie that get shown in theaters, there is one copy of the film that is kept for the archives. In France alone, there is about 800 copies for major releases, 300 for smaller movies. With digital copies, no problem, as one copy is kept, the others are re-used for new movies. But with reels, only one is kept, and the others are burned.

    Now, for 799 copies of Harry Potter 4, which is 2.5 hours long, that is 2300+ kilometers of highly toxic reels that are burned.
  • j7wildj7wild Suspended
    Posts: 823
    Look at it! LOOOOOK AT IT!

    First video from set

    http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10150223186041807&oid=141884481557&comments

    Downloadable version, please!
  • Posts: 1,973
    Cool, j7, I'll avoid watching anything from Hobbit not to ruin my appreciation of the flick once I see it.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited April 2011 Posts: 13,286
    Here's a YouTube version:


    Can't wait for this. Hopefully the public will be more than happy to have waited 9 years as well.

    The Hobbit: Part 1 will most likely be the biggest film of 2012 with The Dark Knight Rises not far behind it. The Amazing Spider-Man and Bond 23'll be in the top 10 as well. A very big year for film, next year.
  • Posts: 1,066
    Looks great but what's the deal with the two parts? Is it needed?
  • Posts: 5,767
    Quoting doubleonothing: Does it have the same look and feel? Well, that's up for debate. There's something about the way film looks that is difficult to emulate on digital.
    Seeing the article on the MI6 main page about Roger Deakins going in a digital direction, the advancements seem to be continuous.
    Quoting doubleonothing: But I somehow feel making something so easy to use does breed a certain degree of contempt for the process. Something of the artfulness and craftsmanship is lost, I think. But that's just me.
    I think the result should matter. As with all advancements that make the technical side seemingly easier, there is a danger that talent is disregarded and that this becomes visible in the endresult. But such developments always demand a certain change of vantage point. The important thing is that the filmmakers keep in mind their basic directive: to make a good film. Then technical advancements become useful tools. Admittedly things like CGI led to a variety of results opposing this directive, so a certain danger seems unavoidable.
  • j7wildj7wild Suspended
    edited April 2011 Posts: 823
    Frodo is back in this?

    Man, How old was he in the LOTR trilogy and how young is he in The Hobbit?
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited April 2011 Posts: 13,286
    @j7wild

    I believe the story of the The Hobbit will be told to Frodo in a post-The Lord Of The Rings world and as he hears it's we'll see it. So a "Flashback" if you will.
  • Posts: 5,767
    Sounds like a waste of frames to me, to be honest. Especially with the expensive shot at 48fps they shouldn´t waste frames on Frodo. Or has he anything to do with the plot?
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,286
    No, nothing other than what I mentioned. It's not just Frodo, many other characters from The Lord Of The Rings will also appear.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,534
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,286
    It's great how it feels so familiar. Jackson is about to show Lucas how revisiting something should be done.
  • Posts: 5,767
    It's great how it feels so familiar. Jackson is about to show Lucas how revisiting something should be done.
    Way early to say such a thing.

  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    @Samuel...

    it's also just a little easier when Jackson has an established and timeless novel in which to work from - instead pulling CGI clown hankerchiefs out of his a** like Lucas did..
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,286
    It's great how it feels so familiar. Jackson is about to show Lucas how revisiting something should be done.
    Way early to say such a thing.

    It's because of the aforementioned novel from @haserot that I do. I really don't see how this can be mucked up.

    Here's hoping it's just as good as the last three films.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,286
    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/hobbit-third-movie-warner-bros-353719?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=heat+vision

    The Hobbit trilogy could well happen, with Jackson looking to do two months more filming next summer.
  • Posts: 5,767
    I don´t know what to think of this. At first sight it shouts sellout. But then again, Jackson didn´t want to direct it in the first place, so if he wants to make more out of it now, I guess it´s out of love for the material.
Sign In or Register to comment.