The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Forum

CinemaCon is apparently going on right now and Warner Bros. had a 10 minute presentation of The Hobbit, specifically showing off the 3D at 48fps. Traditionally all movies are shot at 24fps, giving it that cinematic look, but The Hobbit is trying to break new ground at shooting at twice the framerate. All the promotional stuff that Peter Jackson and company have said about his decision was that shooting at 48fps would make the 3D look better, be easier on the eyes and just give a sharper, crisper image quality. But apparently press members were left underwhelming, saying that the footage looked like "television" and "non-cinematic."

Some shots looked spectacular, such as some sweeping vista shots around mountains and others, mostly scenes shot on a set, look unconvincing and looks like a set on a sound stage, breaking the immersion. 10 minutes is not a proper length to present what this will look like considering the movie will certainly be two hours plus, but it does cause some concern. 3D is already facing such a backlash in North America and any possibility that this new format to shoot will mend all the scars that shoddy, dim, and headache inducing that 3D has caused over the past three years isn't looking good.

Here's the article that summarizes several press members' opinions on the presentation:

http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/peter-jacksons-48fps-presentation-of-the-hobbit-at-cinemacon-gets-a-mixed-response-20120424

Also, I should mention this, apparently the movie is good, it just doesn't look pretty.

Reading the title I was hearing that you meant the quality wasn't good... you scared me there for a second.

@RockinKemosabe: Sorry for my ignorance but that means that the 2d will also be in 48fps right? Because I wouldn't have a problem if it was just the 3D

@TheFaithfullyDeparted: I believe they said the standard 2D version is being converted down to 24fps. Only the 3D version is 48fps, which sucks because I wanted to see the movie in IMAX.

Yikes! What the article goes on to say, and what I agree with, is that audiences generally have no clue what 48fps even means, so if it looks weird, they wont be impressed by the lack of "juttering", they'll just think that it looks weird. And bad word of mouth could put a huge dent in these films' success. (at least they'll both be all shot, so it's not like they'll never release the 2nd one)

I love Michael Mann, and the elements of Public Enemies were there, but the digital made it look like a crappy telenovela, and as hard as I tried I just couldn't get into it.

The quality assumptions that we make about image quality are fascinatingly arbitrary, but it really all comes down to, "If it looks weird, people won't like it."

@gangly: I agree with you. Especially on Public Enemies, certain sequences, mostly action scenes, just look jarring. But I think that people have watched so many movies that the human eye generally accepts movies at 24fps and that's what makes them so cinematic because humans don't see like that in real life. So when you view a movie at anything above that 24fps the human eye notices the difference and it breaks the immersion. It's kind of like the uncanny valley.

I've always preferred a cinematic quality, that's why some of these new TV's just kill things for me.

Same with games. Unless it's a fighting or racing game, I much prefer 30 to 60.

Keeping my hopes up. Still really excited to see it. On paper the 48fps move seems logical. I guess it's a wait-and-see situation.

Yes, that's what I've always said when people like Jackson and Cameron champion higher framerates, you'll just make these super expensive blockbusters look like shitty soap operas.