Peter Jackson to direct "The Hobbit"

[MontyServo]

To be honest, I didn't read the article and just figured that since it was posted in this thread it was in regards to The Hobbit in particular.  Can't give an opinion on that movie being in 48fps until it comes out.

[MontyServo]

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 3D. It looks great, and we've actually become used to it now

So it is only going to take several months of daily viewing to get used to 48fps.  Sweet. 

Reading that article it almost sounds like Jackson is trying to one-up what James Cameron did with 3D and Avatar.  To try and revolutionize the way we watch movies. 

Going from 24fps to 48fps, is almost going to be like going from silent to sound or from black & white to color.  I guess it just remains to be seen if that will be a good thing or not.  Again, I have to reserve final judgment until I can take a look at the final product.

[Smith Dr John Smith]

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 3D. It looks great, and we've actually become used to it now

So it is only going to take several months of daily viewing to get used to 48fps.  Sweet. 

Reading that article it almost sounds like Jackson is trying to one-up what James Cameron did with 3D and Avatar.  To try and revolutionize the way we watch movies. 

Going from 24fps to 48fps, is almost going to be like going from silent to sound or from black & white to color.  I guess it just remains to be seen if that will be a good thing or not.  Again, I have to reserve final judgment until I can take a look at the final product.

I'm sure Jackson wouldn't be wrecking his movie for no reason.  As I said before the frame rate that we shoot movies at has increased before and I can't think of any thing that would happen from the frame rate going up other then being able to see more detail and on screen movement being smoother.  It sounds like we could get the details of film with the smoothness of movement you get from video tape,that could be a very good thing in the long run.

[Variety of Cells]

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 3D. It looks great, and we've actually become used to it now

So it is only going to take several months of daily viewing to get used to 48fps.  Sweet. 

Reading that article it almost sounds like Jackson is trying to one-up what James Cameron did with 3D and Avatar.  To try and revolutionize the way we watch movies. 

Going from 24fps to 48fps, is almost going to be like going from silent to sound or from black & white to color.  I guess it just remains to be seen if that will be a good thing or not.  Again, I have to reserve final judgment until I can take a look at the final product.

I'm sure Jackson wouldn't be wrecking his movie for no reason.  As I said before the frame rate that we shoot movies at has increased before and I can't think of any thing that would happen from the frame rate going up other then being able to see more detail and on screen movement being smoother.  It sounds like we could get the details of film with the smoothness of movement you get from video tape,that could be a very good thing in the long run.

First off, it's not like "going from silent to sound or from black & white to color".  It's just an attempt to make 3D less shitty.  And I believe it might actually achieve what it's trying to do.

Right now 3D always appears to be blurry and less sharp because of the way it is projected and the way it is shot.  There are things that switching to 48 frames won't fix, but it will definitely help.  Help with the sharpness anyway.  48 frames won't do anything to address how 3D is just plain unnecessary aesthetically and distracting in most cases.

What people are complaining about is that it loses that "film" feel that 24 fps gives you.  People have been trying so hard over the years to get video to match up to 24 fps to give it that "film" feel, and it's also why British television feels different when you watch it because of the different frame rate.  However, we are becoming so used to watching videos on youtube with different frame rates and video codecs that we no longer only associate 24 fps with being a movie.  We have become much more used to different types of video, and I don't think the jump to 48 fps is going to be that hard for people to make.  Soon enough we will just associate 48 fps with how 3D films look (if they keep insisting on making films in 3D)

[MontyServo]

First off, it's not like "going from silent to sound or from black & white to color".  It's just an attempt to make 3D less shitty.  And I believe it might actually achieve what it's trying to do.

Right now 3D always appears to be blurry and less sharp because of the way it is projected and the way it is shot.  There are things that switching to 48 frames won't fix, but it will definitely help.  Help with the sharpness anyway.  48 frames won't do anything to address how 3D is just plain unnecessary aesthetically and distracting in most cases.

What people are complaining about is that it loses that "film" feel that 24 fps gives you.  People have been trying so hard over the years to get video to match up to 24 fps to give it that "film" feel, and it's also why British television feels different when you watch it because of the different frame rate.  However, we are becoming so used to watching videos on youtube with different frame rates and video codecs that we no longer only associate 24 fps with being a movie.  We have become much more used to different types of video, and I don't think the jump to 48 fps is going to be that hard for people to make.  Soon enough we will just associate 48 fps with how 3D films look (if they keep insisting on making films in 3D)

OK, so 48fps is only intended for 3D films?  I did not realize that.  I was thinking, incorrectly I guess, that this was intended to eventually replace 24fps for all movies.

I guess I will see how it turns out.  Not that I really want to see The friggin' Hobbit.  Maybe with the eventual Rifftrax.  Lord knows that was the only way I could get through the Lord of the Rings films.  (No offense to Tolkien fans, but that stuff has never been my cuppa tea. )

[MontyServo]

First off, it's not like "going from silent to sound or from black & white to color".  It's just an attempt to make 3D less shitty.  And I believe it might actually achieve what it's trying to do.

Right now 3D always appears to be blurry and less sharp because of the way it is projected and the way it is shot.  There are things that switching to 48 frames won't fix, but it will definitely help.  Help with the sharpness anyway.  48 frames won't do anything to address how 3D is just plain unnecessary aesthetically and distracting in most cases.

What people are complaining about is that it loses that "film" feel that 24 fps gives you.  People have been trying so hard over the years to get video to match up to 24 fps to give it that "film" feel, and it's also why British television feels different when you watch it because of the different frame rate.  However, we are becoming so used to watching videos on youtube with different frame rates and video codecs that we no longer only associate 24 fps with being a movie.  We have become much more used to different types of video, and I don't think the jump to 48 fps is going to be that hard for people to make.  Soon enough we will just associate 48 fps with how 3D films look (if they keep insisting on making films in 3D)

OK, so 48fps is only intended for 3D films?  I did not realize that.  I was thinking, incorrectly I guess, that this was intended to eventually replace 24fps for all movies.

That seems to be how Jackson is trying to sell it.

The idea of making movies more "realistic" seems doomed to failure, because they're inherently not realistic.  Reality doesn't have a narrative or a coherent theme or artfully shot angles.  Real life is tedious and depressing and boring. That's why we like movies, because they make reality into art. 

Most theaters probably won't be able to project it at 48fps anyway, it sounds like.  And I've now seen a modern 3D movie, and realize that I've been missing exactly nothing.  As long as 2D screenings are available, I don't care if it sticks around, but I'll never go out of my way to see another one.

I plan on seeing Avengers in 2D.  For me, 3D only works well with animated films.  Live action 3D has been very hit and miss, more miss than hit.

[Variety of Cells]

Yeah, the only reason I saw a movie in 3D at all was that I was meeting my wife at the theater (she had to be there to drive a trip) and I'd already driven up, and the 2D screening had already started, so we went to the 3D version.  Mostly it was just kind of blurry and dark.

Yeah, blurry and dark.  48 fps might help that, which is why The Hobbit is the only film I plan on seeing in 3D, to see if it works.  Prometheus I will definitely see in 2D because I think it might actually be a good movie and I don't want it ruined. 

And I disagree when people say that 3D is more "real".  Does life look like that?  No.  It's an effect.

[Sideswipe]

3D is definitely just a gimmick thats popular at the moment.

[Raefire]

The Hobbit looked amazing in the preview before Tintin. The 3D was definitely being used well.

[Smith Dr John Smith]

The Hobbit looked amazing in the preview before Tintin. The 3D was definitely being used well.

Yeah I am having a hard time waiting until December.

Speaking of TinTin I heard Jackson is doing the next movie has he said when that will be coming out?

[MartyS (Gromit)]

I wonder if his idea is to alternate the right and left images like they do on the home systems that use the shutter glasses (which has way more clarity than in the theaters I've been in).  So shooting at 48fps would give each eye 24fps.  I think some of the blurriness in the current system comes from crossover, they are projecting 2 polarized images at the same time and the system doesn't work at 100% so a little bit of the image for one eye leaks over to the other.  If you were to alternate the right and left images then you have a single clear image on screen all the time.

Of course the other problem is they are supposed to turn up the projector brightness to compensate for the darkness of the glasses, but don't to save electricity and bulb life, extra frames per second aren't going to help that.

[Variety of Cells]

Very true. I'm not sure if they will use shutter glasses, but that would make sense.

However, the way 3D is shot right now, it's inherintly going to be just a little out of focus. To shoot 3D you need two cameras. These camera are mounted together, however they are not side by side like you would think: one is normal and the other is above it pointed straight down, like this.



That's Red's Epic camera (which a work friend of mine owns. It's nice and small which makes it great for 3D rigs that get awful heavy with bigger cameras.) This is what they shot The Hobbit with (the camera. The rig might have been a little different).

Now, the bottom camera is going to be nice and crisply in focus. It's shooting straight through the two way mirror that's reflecting everything up to the second camera.  But according to a camera assistant friend of mine, that second camera can never be 100% in focus because of the way the mirror is set up.

So, until they find a way to use one lens to shoot 3D, one of the images is always going to be a tiny annoying little bit out of focus.

[Variety of Cells]

I wonder if his idea is to alternate the right and left images like they do on the home systems that use the shutter glasses (which has way more clarity than in the theaters I've been in).  So shooting at 48fps would give each eye 24fps. 

Possibly, but I was under the impression that he's championing a general move to this for all movies.

I don't think that's the case.  Just 3D movies.

[Variety of Cells]

I think you're wrong. He's pushing for it to replace 24fps, he says it looks better across the board, and ESPECIALLY with 3D movies.
http://collider.com/hobbit-peter-jackson-48fps/162564/

Much like Steve described as a transition from silent movies to those with sound or from black and white to color, projection at 24fps to 48fps may be the way of cinematic future...we just happen to be experiencing some growing pains. As Jackson put it:

    "Nobody is going to stop. This technology is going to keep evolving."

That article doesn't say "only for 3D films", but it also doesn't say "for every film".  It's vague about what applications it sees for 48fps.  The only thing its clear on is that "48fps is here it stay".  I take that to be referring to big 3D films.

48fps doesn't make sense in applications other than 3D.  There's no reason at all.  It would just cost studios and theaters more money and make it looks "worse".  48fps exists to fix some problems with 3D, and even if Peter Jackson personally wants everything to be in 48fps (which I'm fairly positive he doesn't), it's still not going to happen because the studios would just say no.  There's no reason to double the film stock and developing budget just because Peter Jackson said so.

[Variety of Cells]

You think it looks worse. I imagine it does. PJ clearly doesn't.  I really didn't get any kind of "oh, this is just for 3D, don't worry" from anything I've read him say.

Well no, he wouldn't say that, because that would make it sound like a compromise instead of an overall improvement.  But no one in the industry is considering shooting 2D films at 48fps.  The only way that would happen is if The Hobbit is so successful that 48fps becomes a buzz word and studios can use it as an advertising gimmick to get more people in the seats.  Doesn't sound like that will be the case though.

I was trying to be careful when I used the term "worse" by keeping it in quotes.  I personally don't know if it's worse because I haven't seen it.  But I don't think "worse" would be a good term for it, it'll just be "different".  It's something that people will get used to.  But I could see myself being put off by it initially.  Especially with so many scenes lit by fire light and warm friendly glows in old rustic wooden houses, a look that normally evokes that nice friendly feeling of film at 24fps.  Might be jarring seeing all that crisp and clear motion when you're used to something a little softer.