Specialty B.O. Preview: ‘Before Midnight’, … 
2012-2013 Season Network Rankings: CBS Sweeps In Final … 
Full 2012-2013 TV Season Series Rankings 
TOLDJA! Paramount Pocketing $190M From Disney For Marvel … 
‘Good Morning America’ Hits 19-Year Viewership … 
MGM Buys ‘Modern Family’ Producer Ben … 
‘Fashion Police’ Writers Chant On Picket Lines: … 
Universal Makes Seven-Figure Deal For ‘The School For … 
Steven Soderbergh Will Interrupt Retirement To Direct And … 
Cannes: EOne Announces Itself As Player In U.S. … 
Will LIN TV Stations Go Dark On Time Warner Cable? 
Very Crowded Memorial Weekend Kick-Off: ‘Hangover … 
Shareholders Quiz Time Warner Chief On Political Ties And … 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘Modern Family’, ‘Law … 
Hammond On Cannes: Paramount’s ‘Nebraska’ … 
Cannes: J.C. Chandor Sets Next Project ‘A Most … 
Hannibal Classics Sets Cast For Nic Cage Pic … 
Hammond On Cannes: Robert Redford’s Brave New Role … 
Hot Trailer: Jennifer Aniston And Jason Sudeikis’ … 
Brad Pitt’s Plan B Banner Promotes Jeremy Kleiner To … 
Hot Trailer: Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s ‘Don … 
Warner Bros played to a full house this morning for its 2012 product presentation at the enormous Caesars Palace Colisseum theatre on the second day of CinemaCon. 
One reason was certainly pre-publicity about 10 minutes of footage of Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit being debuted in the revolutionary new format of 48 frames per second. The exhibs had to wait until the end of Warner Bros topper Jeff Robinov’s entire presentation to see how this potential game-changer looks. But before they did, Jackson gave them a history lesson on the subject in taped introductory remarks (also shot in 3D but at 24 frames per sec) from New Zealand. That’s where he is working on the first of the two new films, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, which opens December 14 (the second follows a year later). Jackson explained as the process got more talked-about in the industry he became intrigued by it and was hopeful Hobbit could be the first mainstream major studio feature to be projected at 48 frames (24 frames has been the norm for the last 80 years). Now having done it, he feels there is no reason at all to stick with 24. “It gives you much more of an illusion of real life; in 3D it also offers much less eye-strain,” he said, adding that with digital technology taking over the exhibition industry now, it’s “simple”, and he asked for the exhibitors’ support. With that, he intro’d 10 minutes of Hobbit footage but warned the crowd that it might take their eyes a little time to get used to. He also noted that the footage was far from finished but that this taste will give them the idea.
Related: ‘Dark Shadows’, ‘Dark Knight Rises’ Light Up Warners’ Summer Preview: CinemaCon
No question the crisp, high-def-to-the-max look of the work-in-progress was wildly different and quite startling to those used to film and 24-frame digital 3D. One industry observer next to me said afterwards, “It was like seeing Live From The Met at IMAX. Kinda cold.” Another three-time Oscar winner in attendance who has worked on innumerable classic films told me later, “I think we should let him finish it and see what it’s like then, but it seems a little like the look of a soap opera”. Still another media member thought it looked “extraordinary” but felt the high-defness of it all would deeply divide moviegoers, especially those who like the grain of film.
Of course with every new innovation it takes time to get used to and 10 unfinished minutes isn’t the whole story, but applause from the exhibs was only polite. For me, I’m a purist. I am already kinda missing film. As the clip from the 1957 musical Silk Stockings that opened this morning’s confab reminded, “you’ve gotta have glorious Technicolor, breathtaking Cinemascope and stereophonic sound”.
Related:
‘Dark Shadows’, ‘Dark Knight Rises’ Light Up Warners’ Summer Preview
Universal Rolls Out New Footage As Travolta, Theron, Renner, Stewart Hit CinemaCon
20th Century Fox Unveils 2012 Slate: Return Of ‘Ice Age’, ‘Taken’, Ridley Scott, Ben Stiller
Fox Premieres Stunning Footage Of Ang Lee’s 3D Epic The Life Of Pi
Sony Presents Slick Product Reel
Disney Struts Slate To Exhibitors
Lionsgate Debuts ‘Expendables 2’ At CinemaCon
Awards Columnist Pete Hammond - tip him here.
Loading ...
Nothing new here. IMAX Solido is 48fps on film and of course Doug Trumbull’s masterful ShowScan was 60fps with triple-blade projector.
Everything old is new again!
-RnsW
Showscan was experementing with 2D-3D conversions of one of its live action ride films, but it never came to fruition because the company was in the throes of ceasing operations. The material I saw was convincing, some 3D effects were added on and so on. The tests worked!
In the case of what Peter Jackson is doing and how people are reacting to those, what I assume are, tight shots, he can always do some work on those shots to give them a warmer feel. I have no doubt whatsoever that he wants both HOBBIT films to have that same sense of intense drama as LOTR has, so with that, hope he makes it work.
I’m missing it!!! *Stomps feet*
48FPS is always going to carry with it a “soap opera” effect–somewhat like the TruMotion effect on HD TVs. So if you like the weird/video-ish look of soap operas, instead of movies, you will love 48FPS! It is not going to look good. Never has, never will. One has to wonder why Peter Jackson is throwing every possible bauble (3D! 48FPS! 2 movies instead of 1! Inexplicable characters from LOTR jammed into the script!) at THE HOBBIT instead of just focusing on making a good picture. The one thing he should have kept, he got rid of: Guillermo del Toro directing it!
Not sure why you say 48fps will always have the soup opera effect. The reason you see that with some HDTV’s has nothing to do with the frame rate. It has to so with the edge enhancement techniques they do with the processing software that are, particularly with LCD’s, designed to hide motion blur and other artifacts. High-end plasma’s have been using 48 and 96fps to give non-fractional frame ratio’s of film’s 24fps, instead of the more typical 3:2 pull-down of 60fps, for years and it doesn’t suffer from the soap opera effect at all.
Incorrect, but “soup opera effect” made me laugh. It sounds like people who saw it are already complaining that Jackson’s footage has this effect, so he’s doing something wrong. Besides, even if he does get it right, it’s gonna lead to a proliferation of terrible 48FPS attempts (just like the awful 3D that followed Avatar). I’m not a fan of 48FPS.
I’ve seen plenty of films wrecked by LCD 1080, where the “soup” opera effect is in full force. Thing is, on a TV, in theory, you should be able to change the settings to make things look more “traditional”. Sitting in a movie theatre you don’t have the option of messing about with the settings on the projector. (By the way, no one’s mentioned how this sort of “hyperreal”/”soap opera effect” is likely to also cause the “Blair Witch effect” too for a lot of people. I really don’t want to have folks projectile vomiting at me while I’m trying to watch the video, er, movie.
It is not inexplicable that characters from LOTR are reappearing in the Hobbit films. In fact, it is highly explicable. Read the books.
Please. Just please. I want to see a good live-action movie of THE HOBBIT. Not an elongated 2-movie mashup of THE HOBBIT and LOTR rewritten by Peter Jackson and filmed in 3D/48fps to make it “better.”
Can someone please teach Jim Cameron and Pete Jackson basic biology about the human eye and how it sends images to the brain at around 24 times a second? This 48 frames a second nonsense looks unnatural because, gasp, it is unnatural. Our eyes have a natural motion blur that is actually pretty close to film. Then again, Cameron brought us 3D again, which no one wants, except idiots.
^ Truth spoken.
This is not even close to true.
If we see at 24 frames a second, how do we even tell the difference between 24 and 60 frames per second, which we can. From my 30 second internet research, human vision is thought to top out around 60 fps, but truth is our vision is malleable. There isn’t a frame rate per se, so I call bullshit on your whole hypothesis.
^ Truth spoken.
@coltrane. Wave your hand in front of your face. Do you see motion blur? Yes. Because the interval that the cones and rods take in light information and send it to your brain is the equivalent of between 24 and 30 fps. That is why projections at 48 fps and higher look unusual. Not to be too technical, but 24 fps is captured at a shutter speed of 1/48th a sec (30 fps is 1/60th) so your research isn’t off base. But capturing at 48 fps (shutter speed of 1/96) is unnatural. Sorry about your ignorance.
Beat me to it.
From my research, I would say that 24 fps is really about right for 3D movies, because they are so dark. At 4 foot-lamberts of a typical 3D cinema, your eye integrates over such a long time that anything faster than 24fps is useless. In fact, we had to reduce the motion blur on some movies from the standard 180-degrees because the eye integrates so long in the dark.
48fps and higher frame rates make sense with brighter images. Your home TV is about 10 times brighter than a movie screen, and it’s very easy to see the difference between 24 and 60 fps on TV.
FInally, it’s only going to look like soap operas to certain generations of people. Kids will see 120 fps and think “this is cool, like a great video game!” instead of “this looks like a shitty soap opera”.
Of course you are right that its “basic biology” that the human eye “sends images to the brain” around 24 times per second. Every high school kid learns this. Good point.
I can’t bear digital photography, and 3-D exacerbates the problem. The industry spent a fortune creating Magic Bullet and other such film replication look filters to take the curse out of video…there’s simply no logic in pushing video to make it look even more unnatural to film. Today’s movies have the same boring Digital Intermediate grading, and high-contrast look. We used to spend time with gauze and filters to make the shots look more dreamlike.
Is the industry losing its marbles? Soon, everything will look like a student film or afternoon television. A century of experimentation and artistry, erased in just a handful of ignorant years.
Christopher Nolan speaks a lot of sense.
Making matters worse are the ignorant but vocal folks who ridicule people like us when we try to explain to them that, no my dear child, this is not like the introduction of sound or color and no, children, we shouldn’t have to “put up or shut up”. I bought a plasma 720 specifically due to the soap opera effect disgusting me when I test drove some 1080 LCD sets. Plus the fact I actually enjoy watching DVDs of films and TV shows that were produced before 2009.
… but does Peter Jackson’s volume go to eleven??
I didn’t think so.
Sounds cool love 3d why is it hated? Also why are they trying to make theatre look like television?
But the negative reaction was more for the look of the film, not the content, which seems to be just fine, and every bit as good, or the same as what was in LotR.
So, is there going to be a 48fps. surcharge at the box office, like for 3D?
In order to really sell this they’ve gotta come up with a cool acronym, like “THX” or “IMAX” or “AMC ETX”.
I’m thinking “BFD” would be appropriate.
I hate the ‘soap opera’ look – if you watch a movie on an LED tv it looks like crap, as if it was shot on really crisp VHS. This sounds similar, and who wants that?
Only if Motion Compensation is enabled, otherwise it looks the same as any other TV.
The motion compensation settings (or whatever they choose to call it) it’s terrible and intended only for live HD broadcasts/sports, yet stores sell it as a “Feature” for movies, so you end up with unnatural motion.
Please try turning off the 120Hz feature on your set.
Just to come to Gord’s defence a little here. In an earlier reply I mentioned being “scared off” LCD because of the soap opera look (and I believe LED does the same). It should be noted that I spoke to the resident so-called experts at a few shops and I was told there was no such thing on these sets, that this was the way they were meant to show images, at 120 Hz. So I went and bought a plasma. I’m not disputing “not this again” or anyone else, I’m just saying that people are being told at the retail level that this is how it’s done, and you aren’t allowed to change settings in the store, so it’s soap opera effect all over the place. And with regards to the subject at hand, it’s great that you can turn off the 120Hz on your TV. Try turning the 120Hz (or equivalent) off at a movie theatre showing The Hobbit and see how long you last before the ushers boot you from the place…
I don’t want to watch an “illusion of real life” or something that moves like motion-smoothed video, I want to see a film. Isn’t it really about a tech fix for the blur problem of 3D?
@coltrane. Wave your hand in front of your face. Do you see motion blur? Yes. Because the interval that the cones and rods take in light information and send it to your brain is the equivalent of between 24 and 30 fps. That is why projections at 48 fps and higher look unusual. Not to be too technical, but 24 fps is captured at a shutter speed of 1/48th a sec (30 fps is 1/60th) so your research isn’t off base. But capturing at 48 fps (shutter speed of 1/96) is unnatural. Sorry about your ignorance.
This reminds me of “Newhart”, for some reason. The first season was shot on video, then it switched to film. I hate the look of video sitcoms – the soap opera look, if you will. I don’t want a film to look like a stage play.
?’48 frames ps’ … why not just do it ’60 frames ps’ and only show it at IMAX – most people will only watch it from a crappy low res upload anyway!!!
Peter would love the 48 frame rate to be adopted, just think it will double the frames required to be rendered for his effects company Weta. This means that anyone making a “film” will need to pay alot more since they will now double the frames rendered per second = even more money needing to be spent for CG budgets. Brilliant!!
“It gives you much more of an illusion of real life” Yeah, he’s right… but that “real life” consists of actors, costumes, make-up, sets, ect. It’s TOO real and destroys the illusion, the magic.
It’s clear that some people don’t want magic. They just want something new and shiny. Art? Pfft!
The effect can clearly be see on a Steenbeck film editing machine. Any Film that is viewed at 24fps begins to look more and more like Video as the speed/frame rate increases.
I like the high-def look with live sports or even video games, but I really wonder how it will look on a film like this. It might look very crisp and detailed, but it could also have the off-putting effect that I thought digital cinematography always did (though probably only worse) until the last few years when they have really improved those cameras IMO.
I do hear it can make 3D easier on the eyes for some so I suppose that is good for them, but as someone who never feels sick or gets a headache from 3D (the only films that have made me feel dizzy or get a headache are 2D ones with weird camera angles or movement like Hunger Games, Tree of Life, Green Zone etc.), that doesn’t really effect me. It is also questionable because when I saw the 3D trailer (albeit with film based projection on a 70MM IMAX theater), I was really impressed with how natural it looked, and despite digital cinematography and 3D it seemed to be very much of an single aesthetic piece with the LOTR trilogy, whereas in 48FPS it seems like it will look completely different from the other films.
Humans’ persistence of vision adapts to the medium. Otherwise why would we have come to accept CDs over vinyl? Or 525 lines over real life? Or politicians over leaders? Et cetera.
…. because a Vinylman would be really awkward to jog with?
Otherwise why would we have come to accept CDs over vinyl? Because we didn’t have to flip them over, clean them, then tiptoe back to the sofa.
But, audio-wise, my vinyl copy of Steely Dan’s Aja still blows away my CD copy.
Isn’t it more about our own brain power investment? I’m pretty sure it’s not about past against future. After all higher frame rates are about as much future tech as microwave ovens.
Let me speak about it on a strictly visceral level, as any movie’s content itself is not question. Understand this, because I use the word brain a lot, and that’s maybe misguiding. I’m not talking about self concious thought processes while watching a movie.
It seems to me for years now that having to watch lower framerates forces the audience into extrapolating the missing frames in their head. So a quiet but large part of the movie experience is still an individual experience, consisting of something more than is obvious on the screen. We fill the movie constantly with some small amount of assumptions and personalized associations, even if on the face of it, we still all share the same information.
So getting a TV effect simply takes away all this inner work. It takes away investing our own brain power into the movies. Because, even when many people believe that we want to just passively consume a movie, the opposite is true. We invest a lot into it.
Combine that with a natural attention and emotional investement the Lord of the Rings universe gets, and it’s no wonder you get mixed feelings. Of couse you want to see the books realized in full up there on the screen.
But at the same time nothing of that new 48fps movie, on the subconcious level, actually requires you to become a fully realized movie. It just sits there, the sum of its parts, but never more than that.
On the other hand, what I assume Cameron and Jackson want to achieve is freeing up these brain functions for more complex operations within the intelectual working enviroment of a movie. Which is kinda correct when you look into everything these evolutions of cinema tech brought us. Getting colour, higher resolutions, better sound and 3D took work away for the brain, while flooding us with new possibilities to “see” things. I guess they’re right in what they’re doing.
But as with everything it will take time and some very real feel of loss on the part of the audiences.
Del Toronto pulled off after something like 5 years of waiting – gotta get real here, you can’t keep him on hot standby and never move past the script
I would very, very much liked to have seen Del Toro’s vision, but I hold nothing against him, nor Jackson for that matter. Making a movie, much less THIS movie, is not like throwing a sandwich together for lunch!