There has been a lot of chatter over the last several days about Peter Jackson's reveal of a 10 minute clip from The Hobbit at CinemaCon in Las Vegas on Tuesday. The film was shot and will be exhibited at 48 frames per second, bucking decades of convention by doubling the frame-rate for both filming and projection. The debate has varied, with both sides getting more heated as they argue back and forth. Is this the future of film, or a slide from cinematic glory into TV-like video look for movies? To kick off the discussion, it should be noted that several filmmakers, like Peter Jackson and James Cameron have claimed that 48 frames per second is indeed the future for film and 3D and should become the new industry standard.
I'm okay with a new industry standard, because, well, I kind of hate 3D movies, and I'm just not sure this is the kind of thing that I want. Looking at the history of 3D, I can admit that Avatar was beautiful and revolutionary and like nothing I had ever seen before, but when I think about it, that is not the experience I remember. I remember a bunch of blue cat-people running around in a film with a story that I was not invested in at all. Now, whether that was the 3D or just an under-developed script, I'm not sure…but either way, nothing about it "grabbed" me and brought me in. And, when given the option, I always choose 2D. I can't remember the last time I was more excited to see a movie in 3D, and in fact, I can't remember the last time that it didn't give me a headache.
After seeing the clip, there was a general consensus that the style creates a much more crisp and "real" picture. The experience was likened to the first time someone sees HD and wonders how it looks so true to life….only with this, ten times more. In a statement about the decision to shoot in this style Jackson said, "It looks much more lifelike, and it is much easier to watch, especially in 3D. 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, to the point that other film experiences look a little primitive". However, the many detractors claim that what they are trying to tell us is the good thing about 48fps is exactly the problem…it is too real. That is takes away the hyper-real quality of a film that we have become accustomed to and, "robs the film of any cinematic quality." Don't get me wrong, some industry professionals in attendance called the 48 frames per second "mind-blowing" and claimed that it could revolutionize cinema as we know it, however, although this is difficult for me to write without seeing it; I'm not convinced.
I'm not sure that going to see a movie is about reality. It's about escapism, taking a few hours out of your day to not live in the real world, pretending that the people you are watching on the screen are your friends, and believing that you are in a far-away place that is not your normal day-to-day life. One perspective on film theory by Roland Barthes claims that one of the things that makes seeing a film a powerful experience is the "dream-like state" that a viewer is put in to when going to a theater. The room is dark, there is an image being projected in front of you and you become a passive observer not engaging with what is happening in the world around you. It is this experience that can allow us to sit back and actually feel what is happening on the screen - cry when someone dies, cheer when someone wins, and clap when the entire experience is over. My fear is that by making film too realistic and too close to what we experience every day, much of this experience will be lost. I'm afraid that the human connections and emotions that we feel while watching a film will be gone.
Looking back on it, I believe this is one of the things that prevents me from loving 3-D. I am always aware that there is a pair of glasses on my face and I am not looking at an image like one that I have ever seen before. This proposed image of "crisp reality" also worries me with a film like "The Hobbit", which is all about suspended disbelief and attaching to characters that we all know don't exist. If Bilbo Baggins looks like he could be your best friend sitting next to you, will your mind truly allow you to feel like this made up world is real? I know that we don't get this same experience all the time when we are watching movies at home, but I would argue that is why, after technology has improved so much, we still go out to see movies at theaters.
On the other hand, while I say all of this, if I am blown away, and I am wrong about it, I will jump on the bandwagon. I won't pretend that I'm not going to go see it, and I'm not going to be fascinated by the process…I just hope that this is not a bunch of tech guys getting together and ruining the experience we have with film, without thinking about the people that are the most important…..the people like us, who just want to sit back, and have an amazing and magical experience with the stories and characters they have created.
Are there really people that upset about bucking the trend and going 48? I guess being a gamer that hates anything less than 60 I must be the odd man out. It just sounds like a lot of people don't have the faintest clue about frames per-second, robs the "cinematic feel", so jumpy frame rate and a dizzying created by the movement off camera being to fast for the captured frames is a good thing, and cinematic? Sounds like a bunch of old hens reminiscing about the good ol' days.
A smoother viewing experience is not going to destroy the movie experience, it should actually make it a lot more enjoyable due to it being less brash on your eyes. The main problem you're facing is that your cuts will have to be a lot smoother, else you run the risk of jarring the audience(or giving away tricks).
and before someone comes in a pulls that old "It doesn't matter in action scenes" nonsense take a look at this. It also comes with a better argument of WHY a film maker wouldn't want to do higher fps
http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html
I am ok with any format as long as it allows the filmmakers to get the look they want. Even when filmed digitally, you can still make a movie look "filmic" with the use of digital effects, like in 300 or the Grindhouse movies.
In short, filmmakers should be allowed to use whatever format they choose.
The only thing I'm afraid of is that when I become used to 48 frames per second, I won't be able to get used to the 30 frames per second of the old movies.
What I am worried about is if this takes off and becomes more and more the industry standard, theater chains better keep up and actually have projectors that can show 48 fps. If they don't it will just look like you are watching a movie on a really big TV set to 120Hz upscaling.
Also, if studios keep liking the extra money from 3D, and 48 fps means 3D is easier for directors to use, then that means more 3D.
@Acura_Max:
Pretty much, the main problem(imo) for the viewer(not the film maker) is getting used to the hyper-realism smoother frames can make. Show someone a death seen at 29.7 and it feels surreal, but show that same scene at 48 or higher and you can run the risk of disturbing the viewer, or worse, run the risk of completely destroying the immersion do to shoddy film work(but it all comes down to the viewer's tolerance level). It seems less whimsy and more grounded.
I guess that's were @AngeTheDude's suggestion comes in, it all depends on the film makers artistic vision and what he/she wants to achieve.
Does FPS have any impact on the size of the movie? Will this fit on a single DVD? If the size does increase, will it be negligible? I don't know stuff about things. If this 48 FPS catches on and movies aren't able to fit on a single DVD anymore, that could push Blu-Ray over the top.
What it sounds like their describing is the same effect you get on some T.V.'s that have that "digital smoothing" setting turned on. ...and that worries me.
24 fps sets a certain mood that I think is essential for escapist films. I've compared it to video games before, where the cinematic look of 30 fps draws me in, while 60 fps makes me think "I'm playing a game." Works well for fighting and racing, but not for something like Asura's Wrath (get that DLC!)
Will the Hobbit be shot on 35mm film at 48 fps, or will it be shot digitally? I'd be interested in seeing what film @ 48fps would look like to see if it retains a filmic look. If it's shot digitally however, I'd think it would be in danger of looking like Public Enemies. IMO Mann made a mistake shooting PE digitally, a 1930s look at a historical figure shouldn't look like a video taped episode of COPS. Too realistic.
There is a very real danger of losing the filmic look at higher fps. One can already tell the difference between 24 and 30 fps, with the later always looking like a cheap soap opera. More fps doesn't necessarily mean better. Sounds like the film exhibitors aren't totally convinced either. They just spent millions on new digital projection and probably won't want to upgrade their setups.
I remain skeptical of the new tech, but I'm glad someone's trying it so audiences can decide for themselves.
@ddensel:
Peter Jackson apparetly nabed about 30 Red Epic cameras(digital), but who knows, it might help imbed LoTR with a game of thrones like quality, sort of a dirty hyper fantasy realism, which I believe used the same technology as Anonymous, and that turned out fine
I've got a like... well, not softporn... but let's say sexy (swim suits, lingerie, costumes, etc) Japanese... film. Anyway it's 1080p and 60fps and it's kind of mind blowing watch it, it makes you feel like you're looking at somebody through a window. But yeah, I do agree that while 48fps will likely damage the cinematic quality of a film, I'd hate to NOT see it in 48fps.
@Top8cat: Ah, thanks for the info. Its seems like the quality of digital cinematography is getting better every month, the Anonymous trailer I saw did look fine. Going with my Michael Mann example, I liked the look of Collateral and Miami Vice, but didn't feel it looked right for Public Enemies. As of right now, I'm not ready to totally give up on 35mm/24fps.
Like I said, I'm glad someone's trying it. I'm curious to see how it all turns out.
I have to see it to believe it. I'm honestly not sure exactly what it even looks like. Based on what I'm hearing, I'm imagining something like video, which makes me think of 28 Days Later, and how to me it felt more like a TV special than a movie because it was shot on video. I liked 28 Days Later as a movie, but I thought it looked like shit and it continually took me out of the viewing experience. However the 48fps looks, I'm really hoping The Hobbit does not turn out like that.
I have total faith in Peter Jackson.
I have the same problem re: 3D movies giving me headaches. You should talk to Will and Norm, they have some good tips on making your own 2D glasses.
Ah, come on!
Now nerds and tech-geeks complaint about such technical details? I can't imagine you guys being able to watch and enjoy older movies! :P
(and me, often watching ol' 1930s movies, you wouldn't stand those I'm sure!)
@bunkerbuster05 said:
You sure about that? ;)
I don't think any improvement in technology is to the detriment of immersion. CG has improved and it just made films better, 3D hasn't made films worse except for a few cases, it's just doesn't seem all that special and I've got used to it. No one complained when HD became commonplace.
You just get used to the format as being the most common and then what is different feels different and then you notice it. As soon as people are used to watching things a certain way then no one will have any complaints. I trust the artistic vision of these extremely highly paid people most of the time.
It's the job of the creative process to create escapism, the technology really doesn't matter because as soon as the creators know how to wield it then it will work as well as film always has done.
Keep in mind that the only reason people associate 24fps with "movie-quality" is because movies have used such a framerate for decades and people are accustomed to it. They unconsciously make the link that "24fps=movie" and "anything else=sub-quality".
That being said, 24fps isn't a magical number that fell from the sky. Filmmakers chose this number specifically because it offered the best synchronisation between audio and video, not to cut costs by reducing the number of frames. Now, the reason they went with 24fps instead of 48 is precisely because they wanted to reduce costs. Film prints are still crazy expensive to produce even today in 2012.
Now that movies can be shot and projected digitally, those costs don't matter anymore. So if the only reason people are upset about the change to 48p is "I don't like it" or "It doesn't feel like a movie experience", I say screw those people. I welcome the change. If enough filmmakers push it, eventually everyone will get accustomed to it and nobody will bitch, eventually.
Hugo is a better film in 3D and a great example of how great 3D can be when done right.