1. Post #1
    Gold Member
    Scot's Avatar
    March 2007
    15,633 Posts
    This is pretty awesome.


    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!

    Time to jump in the car and drive to Bag End for the day. Video coming soon!
    http://www.flicksandbits.com/2011/04...-images/10142/

    I have always wondered why films were shot at such a low framerate. Good to hear Peter is moving things forwards.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Russian Federation Show Events Winner x 50Agree x 3Informative x 2Artistic x 1Late x 1Friendly x 1 (list)

  2. Post #2
    I remember when titles used to mean something, now you can get one for a dollar, this all used to be fields, get off my lawn damn kids etc.
    evlbzltyr's Avatar
    May 2006
    6,276 Posts
    I prefer it when videos are shot at the usual 28 fps. For some reason, any higher and the video just becomes a little boring for me. It'll be interesting to see how they pull it off though, as reading through this makes it sound pretty interesting.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply United Kingdom Show Events Dumb x 25Disagree x 17Agree x 3Funny x 1Informative x 1 (list)

  3. Post #3
    Gold Member
    Swilly's Avatar
    December 2009
    16,061 Posts
    Boring ?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply United States Show Events Agree Agree x 35Disagree Disagree x 2 (list)

  4. Post #4
    Gold Member
    UnidentifiedFlyingTard's Avatar
    March 2009
    8,362 Posts
    24fps just looks more movie like, anything higher doesn't look very cinematic to me.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply United States Show Events Agree Agree x 40Disagree Disagree x 12Dumb Dumb x 2Informative Informative x 1 (list)

  5. Post #5
    provides mlp plot free of charge
    Oicani Gonzales's Avatar
    February 2011
    17,790 Posts
    24fps just looks more movie like, anything higher doesn't look very cinematic to me.
    That's called habit

    Edited:

    I'm really looking forward to The Hobbit.
    Hype's fucking me.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Brazil Show Events Agree Agree x 12Disagree Disagree x 2Funny Funny x 1Optimistic Optimistic x 1 (list)

  6. Post #6
    Gold Member
    Swilly's Avatar
    December 2009
    16,061 Posts
    24fps just looks more movie like, anything higher doesn't look very cinematic to me.
    Videogames have become more cinematic then movies have because of their higher frames per second
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply United States Show Events Agree Agree x 15 (list)

  7. Post #7
    Gold Member
    Lord of Ears's Avatar
    January 2007
    8,236 Posts
    why are we only just doing this
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply United States Show Events Agree Agree x 6 (list)

  8. Post #8
    Gold Member
    UnidentifiedFlyingTard's Avatar
    March 2009
    8,362 Posts
    I'm sure it will help with eye strain in 3D, but I don't watch movies in 3D.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply United States Show Events Agree Agree x 10 (list)

  9. Post #9
    That's called habit
    No it's called Hobbit
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply United States Show Events Zing x 38Funny x 8Winner x 2Late x 1Agree x 1Informative x 1Useful x 1Artistic x 1Friendly x 1 (list)

  10. Post #10
    Gold Member
    Mister B's Avatar
    August 2008
    3,295 Posts
    I don't like higher-framerate movies. Public Enemies looked just weird to me.

    Also, Blu-Ray movies make me queasy.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply United States Show Events Disagree Disagree x 3Dumb Dumb x 3Optimistic Optimistic x 1 (list)

  11. Post #11
    provides mlp plot free of charge
    Oicani Gonzales's Avatar
    February 2011
    17,790 Posts
    No it's called Hobbit
    God damn you :arghfist:
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Brazil Show Events Winner Winner x 1Dumb Dumb x 1Disagree Disagree x 1Friendly Friendly x 1 (list)

  12. Post #12
    CjienX's Avatar
    April 2010
    5,811 Posts
    ITT: People assume that framerate is the only contributing factor to an image
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply United States Show Events Agree Agree x 2 (list)

  13. Post #13
    chewgo's Avatar
    July 2010
    423 Posts
    So The Hobbit is going to be in 3D? Oh... :frown:
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply United States Show Events Dumb Dumb x 6Agree Agree x 3Late Late x 2 (list)

  14. Post #14
    Gold Member
    Biotoxsin's Avatar
    June 2008
    7,117 Posts
    Anyone else ever feel as though video at higher than 24 fps appears low-budget regardless of quality otherwise?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply United States Show Events Agree Agree x 7Disagree Disagree x 5 (list)

  15. Post #15
    Please waste more of your money changing this title again.
    Gmod4ever's Avatar
    August 2005
    6,786 Posts
    I am excited. I hope the film is good, though I'm certain it will be.

    Also, the image may be old, but I think it's appropriate for this thread:

    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply United States Show Events Funny x 31Dumb x 2Artistic x 1Late x 1Informative x 1Winner x 1 (list)

  16. Post #16
    Pythagoras64's Avatar
    August 2007
    281 Posts
    Yeah, I've seen movies shot at a higher framerate, and they just look odd to me. There's something about the sluggishness of the normal framerate that adds a lot of weight to the movement.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Canada Show Events Agree Agree x 8Artistic Artistic x 1Disagree Disagree x 1 (list)

  17. Post #17
    Gold Member
    Pandamobile's Avatar
    January 2009
    3,703 Posts
    snip
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Canada Show Events Disagree Disagree x 1 (list)

  18. Post #18
    CjienX's Avatar
    April 2010
    5,811 Posts
    There are 8 hobbits in the hobbyte...
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply United States Show Events Dumb Dumb x 4Informative Informative x 1Late Late x 1 (list)

  19. Post #19
    Gold Member
    Scot's Avatar
    March 2007
    15,633 Posts
    There's something about the sluggishness of the normal framerate that makes it blurry as shit and action scenes unintelligible.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Russian Federation Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  20. Post #20
    Pythagoras64's Avatar
    August 2007
    281 Posts
    I guess it's all opinion then because I've never had that problem.

    I just don't really "feel" the movement at a higher framerate like I do with traditional framerates. It's incredibly subtle, and I can't really explain it.

  21. Post #21
    Gold Member
    Dr.C's Avatar
    April 2006
    7,650 Posts
    watching things at a higher framerate just feels off. I've been accustomed to 24 fps my whole life.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply United States Show Events Agree Agree x 8Dumb Dumb x 2 (list)

  22. Post #22
    Pythagoras64's Avatar
    August 2007
    281 Posts
    Whenever I see something shot at a high framerate it always makes me think of low budget Canadian television.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Canada Show Events Agree Agree x 8Funny Funny x 1 (list)

  23. Post #23
    Gold Member
    Dr.C's Avatar
    April 2006
    7,650 Posts
    Same here but instead of canadian television, I think of spanish soap operas
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply United States Show Events Agree Agree x 3Funny Funny x 1 (list)

  24. Post #24
    Awesome Member
    Dennab
    January 2006
    40,352 Posts
    ugh what exactly is the point of this
    and it's fucking 3d too AW FUCK YOU
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply United States Show Events Dumb Dumb x 5Informative Informative x 1 (list)

  25. Post #25
    M_B
    Also a fellow SHART fangirl
    M_B's Avatar
    September 2005
    18,016 Posts
    I don't like higher-framerate movies. Public Enemies looked just weird to me.

    Also, Blu-Ray movies make me queasy.
    how do blu-ray movies make you queasy? that doesn't make sense. also the reason Public Enemies looked weird was because they shot it with a digital camera using digital steadycam.

    Edited:

    I prefer it when videos are shot at the usual 28 fps. For some reason, any higher and the video just becomes a little boring for me. It'll be interesting to see how they pull it off though, as reading through this makes it sound pretty interesting.
    you mean the usual slightly less than 24 fps, right?

    Edited:

    Whenever I see something shot at a high framerate it always makes me think of low budget Canadian television.
    again, same thing, it's because they're using video rather than film and not compensating to make it look like film.

    Edited:

    do ANY of you have any idea what the hell you're talking about?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply United States Show Events Agree Agree x 11 (list)

  26. Post #26
    -nesto-'s Avatar
    September 2007
    3,864 Posts
    I'm sure it will look good in the theatre but home release is a whole nother ballgame. There are issues with regular movies still in 24fp that look awful on high end TV sets, mainly LED. Some movies on 240hz look very strange like the actors are floating instead of walking but you watch the same movie on 60/120 or even the 600 of a plasma it will look fine. It will be interesting seeing 48fp on a 240hz set.

  27. Post #27
    M_B
    Also a fellow SHART fangirl
    M_B's Avatar
    September 2005
    18,016 Posts
    what you speak of isn't really at fault of 240Hz (though that's not technically the display's visual refresh rate - that's a different topic) but at the fault of the display's optional motion smoothing
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply United States Show Events Agree Agree x 2 (list)

  28. Post #28
    Pythagoras64's Avatar
    August 2007
    281 Posts
    how do blu-ray movies make you queasy? that doesn't make sense. also the reason Public Enemies looked weird was because they shot it with a digital camera using digital steadycam.

    Edited:



    you mean the usual slightly less than 24 fps, right?

    Edited:



    again, same thing, it's because they're using video rather than film and not compensating to make it look like film.

    Edited:

    do ANY of you have any idea what the hell you're talking about?
    I don't know what I'm talking about, but I do know which I prefer.

  29. Post #29
    Gold Member
    TheDecryptor's Avatar
    September 2006
    4,212 Posts
    And you prefer it because you're used to it, if everything was in 48fps from the start you'd prefer that as well.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Australia Show Events Agree Agree x 4 (list)

  30. Post #30
    Pythagoras64's Avatar
    August 2007
    281 Posts
    And you prefer it because you're used to it, if everything was in 48fps from the start you'd prefer that as well.
    Probably yeah. Maybe if I just watch enough it'll grow on me.

  31. Post #31
    M_B
    Also a fellow SHART fangirl
    M_B's Avatar
    September 2005
    18,016 Posts
    I don't know what I'm talking about, but I do know which I prefer.
    you don't specifically know what it is that makes what you prefer what you prefer versus the alternative(s). thus, by relation, you don't actually know what it is you prefer.

    Edited:

    if filmmakers added judder and motion blur to 48fps content it'd be indistinguishable from 24fps. do you really think they add stuff like that to modern games because it makes screenshots pretty?

  32. Post #32
    CjienX's Avatar
    April 2010
    5,811 Posts
    you don't specifically know what it is that makes what you prefer what you prefer versus the alternative(s). thus, by relation, you don't actually know what it is you prefer.

    Edited:

    if filmmakers added judder and motion blur to 48fps content it'd be indistinguishable from 24fps. do you really think they add stuff like that to modern games because it makes screenshots pretty?
       a screenshot is a capture of one frame   

  33. Post #33
    Gold Member
    Mister Royzo's Avatar
    June 2007
    4,136 Posts
       a screenshot is a capture of one frame   
    Thank god you put that in a spoiler tag.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Netherlands Show Events Funny Funny x 26Agree Agree x 2 (list)

  34. Post #34
    Gold Member
    UnidentifiedFlyingTard's Avatar
    March 2009
    8,362 Posts
    I'm just going to keep my expectations low until I see some footage.

  35. Post #35
    Gold Member
    Canuhearme?'s Avatar
    April 2008
    16,679 Posts
    Did I just see Bard's bow?

  36. Post #36

    November 2010
    375 Posts
    As a film student, 24 fps is really crappy to use in my opinion. You get so much blur when the camera is being used in a hand-held shot or even on a dolly there is some blur. They are using 48fps so they can always bring it down to 24 or leave it at 48 for 3D. 3D at 48 fps is amazing. James Cameron is shooting AVATAR 2 at 48, and 60fps. the higher fps is for less blur and is really being pushed because of the 3D market. I personally like to use 50 or 60 in my projects, but some professors want a "film" look which is 24 fps.

  37. Post #37
    Pretiacruento's Avatar
    September 2009
    9,647 Posts
    Sounds pretty damn interesting to me. I'll keep an eye on this movie

  38. Post #38
    Gold Member
    sp00ks's Avatar
    January 2008
    12,058 Posts
    Sounds pretty damn interesting to me. I'll keep an eye on this movie
    The reason you're keeping an eye on this movie is because it's shot with 48 fps instead of 24?...

  39. Post #39
    Gold Member
    voltlight's Avatar
    May 2006
    2,785 Posts
    I didn't know movies were shot at 24 fps. They looked smoother than that.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply United Kingdom Show Events Agree Agree x 2 (list)

  40. Post #40
    smelly member
    The DooD's Avatar
    June 2005
    7,099 Posts
    I think that's what the motion blur is for.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply United Kingdom Show Events Informative Informative x 1 (list)