Arcadia Power

Author Topic: 48 fps Frames Per Second  (Read 132 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Mac

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9913
  • Dewey Cheatham & Howe LLP
  • Location: Little Ol Town in the Midwest
    • View Profile
48 fps Frames Per Second
« on: April 25, 2012, 08:22:35 pm »
So Peter Jackson is trying to set new industry standard by shooting The Hobbit at 48 fps. At a recent short viewing of some material, reviews were all over the place. The negative comments I think I know what is being displayed. My latest television has settings that allow a hyper real look. Like the article says, it has that day time soap opera. It's even more than that. It doesn't look right. I actually hate the look and would never sit through that setting again... Given the choice.


The Hobbit's game-changing 3-D may be a little too game-changing, apparently

Although Peter Jackson's The Hobbit has thus far survived the Seven Publicity Plagues and endured epic trials of casting to achieve the not-insignificant triumph of becoming an actual movie, there is already a new Hobbit controversy brewing, after Warner Bros. previewed 10 minutes of footage yesterday at CinemaCon. The presentation offered attendees not only the first significant look at the film, but also their first experience with the 48 frames-per-second rate Jackson shot it in—and which he and other 3-D proselytizers like James Cameron (who plans to use it on both Avatar sequels) have argued should be adopted as the new industry standard.
Unfortunately for their cause, reaction to the latter was decidedly mixed, ranging from breathless reports in which critics called it "mind-blowing" and actually used the words "creaming in my pants" to numerous complaints that—while the aerial landscape shots of which Jackson is so fond were truly awesome—the overall effect on character-based scenes was a little too realistic. According to those skeptics, the new, perfectly blur-free frame rate robs the film of any "cinematic" quality, rendering it something akin to the too-brightly-lit, obvious artificiality one sees in soap operas or pornography (which, ironically, had no one creaming in their pants).
Variety's Josh Dickey offered perhaps the most diplomatic assessment, saying that while 48 fps "does bring 3-D to a different level," the immediacy is "jarring" and "unfortunately looks a bit like television." The L.A. Times' Amy Kaufman concurred by proxy, interviewing an anonymous projectionist who said it was "too accurate—too clear" and "looked like a made-for-TV movie." And Deadline conducted its own survey of the audience, quoting exhibitors who called it "kinda cold" and deemed it "a little like the look of a soap opera," suggesting that it would be "quite startling" to those who are used to the slight grain of film. But perhaps no one offered a clearer picture of how much he detested the clearer picture than Badass Digest's Devin Faraci:

Here's what The Hobbit looked like to me: a hi-def version of the 1970s I, Claudius. It is drenched in a TV-like — specifically 70s era BBC — video look. People on Twitter have asked if it has that soap opera look you get from badly calibrated TVs at Best Buy, and the answer is an emphatic YES. The 48fps footage I saw looked terrible. It looked completely non-cinematic. The sets looked like sets. I've been on sets of movies on the scale of The Hobbit, and sets don't even look like sets when you're on them live ... but these looked like sets. The other comparison I kept coming to, as I was watching the footage, was that it all looked like behind the scenes video. The magical illusion of cinema is stripped away completely.

 Of course, that stripping away of the veil between cinema and reality seems to be exactly what Jackson is going for, based on a taped introduction to the screening in which he said pretty much that. But unfortunately for Jackson, while most of these negative reports have been preceded by caveats that this may all be more finely tuned in post-production, the general reaction from attendees—the majority of whom were theater owners—is that they're not sure their audiences are really in the market for this sort of reality, particularly at the movies, and particularly at a movie about fantastical creatures. So this debate seems likely to rage on for a little while, at least until James Cameron finally convinces everyone to adopt his planned upgrade for the human eyeball.
Believe in Yourself
Because the rest of us think you're an idiot.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


Chiprocks1

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25803
  • Tell me a joke...
    • View Profile
Re: 48 fps Frames Per Second
« Reply #1 on: April 25, 2012, 08:31:32 pm »
Interesting, but I need to check these clips out myself before I make a decision one way or another.
Chip's Rockin' Art
Michael Scott To Meredith: "You've slept with so many men, your starting to look like one. BOOM! Roasted! Go here.

Mac

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9913
  • Dewey Cheatham & Howe LLP
  • Location: Little Ol Town in the Midwest
    • View Profile
Re: 48 fps Frames Per Second
« Reply #2 on: August 12, 2012, 06:49:26 pm »
You Probably Won’t Have A Chance To See THE HOBBIT In 48FPS

Warner Bros is only releasing the 48fps version in a very limited number of theaters.

Quote
A couple of months ago Warner Bros was pretty high on The Hobbit's 48fps look. They proudly trotted out ten minutes of footage at CinemaCon, the annual gathering of theater owners - the very folks who would have to pony up the money to upgrade their systems for the new frame rate. But the response was bad. I hated it. And then at Comic-Con WB only showed the footage in standard, 24FPS - and 2D, at that.

Now Variety is reporting that the studio is scaling back their plans for the 48fps release of the movie. Sources tell the trade:  'the [high frame rate] version will go out to only select locations, perhaps not even into all major cities.'

So probably just LA and New York? The article spins the decision, saying that the studio wants to 'protect' the format and roll it out slowly... assuming audiences in those cities like what they see. What's interesting is that WB will have to pony up money to downgrade the footage to 24fps for the majority of its release. An extra, pointless expense (I've also heard rumors that the films are being further worked on in post so that the home video release maintains the same look as the original trilogy, so another cost).

I think it's sort of weird that most people will never even have a chance to see the film in its intended framerate. And that the decision on whether to release the 48fps versions of the next two films will be made based on the reactions of very limited groups. On top of that Variety doesn't mention what, if any, extra cost there will be for 48fps. If it's high having this version be super limited could be a way of convincing folks it's worth ponying up extra cash.

What a bummer that this is what we're talking about. I think that content-wise The Hobbit looks great. I wish that was all that mattered these days.
Believe in Yourself
Because the rest of us think you're an idiot.

Chiprocks1

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25803
  • Tell me a joke...
    • View Profile
Re: 48 fps Frames Per Second
« Reply #3 on: August 13, 2012, 08:07:36 am »
I am curious to see what the footage looks like just so that I can have a frame of reference of what all the commotion is about, but it's not a deal breaker that I don't have access to it that it would keep me from seeing The Hobbit.
Chip's Rockin' Art
Michael Scott To Meredith: "You've slept with so many men, your starting to look like one. BOOM! Roasted! Go here.

 

Automatic Image Resize Code