The Hobbit shooting in 48p on RED cameras

[Heath McKnight]

This is less about RED and more about Peter Jackson and his crew deciding to shoot The Hobbit films in 48p (47.96 fps):

?The Hobbit? Shooting With Technology That James Cameron Called ?The Future of Cinema? | /Film

This is something James Cameron has been pushing. /Film got to see test footage shot and projected in 48p (more film-like) and 60p (I'm guessing it looks like really great 29.97 fps video):

James Cameron Says The Next Revolution in Cinema Is? | /Film

I know the big 20-theater Muvicos in West Palm Beach, FL is 100% digital with Sony 4K projectors, but how many other theaters have made the leap across the world? I'm sure they'll be able to project it in 24 fps without any slow-motion issues.

Heath

[Heath McKnight]

I thought you'd like to see what they're using to shoot The Hobbit films:

Andrew Lesnie reveals The Hobbit 3D cinematography set up - Inside Film: Film and Television Industry News and Issues for Australian Content Creators

heath

[Greg Fiske]

The thing that is going to be interesting is hdrx. It will be interesting to see a mountain with the sky perfectly exposed like we've never seen before.

[Heath McKnight]

Peter Jackson talks about shooting in 48p:

Peter Jackson Explains Why He?s Shooting ?The Hobbit? at 48 Frames Per Second | /Film

heath

[Simon Wood]

10 minutes of Hobbit footage was shown in Las Vegas, in 3d at 48fps. Here come the reviews:

" Everything looks crystal clear but it also looks a little too perfect and lifelike and because of that clarity, the fact that we're looking at sets and actors in costumes and make-up seems much more obvious. One of the nice things about film is that it adds a glossy look that smooths out the rough spots in sets, costumes and make-up.

I'd probably compare the look a bit to the old "Doctor Who" television shows in terms of it looking a lot like it was shot on television cameras, which may be hard to adjust to for those used to a certain way of watching films for 80 odd years."

-----------------------------------

Looked like an old Dr Who episode?! Thats a heluva insult! I wonder will this murder 60fps before it has a chance to take hold, and drive another nail in 3Ds coffin?

Have a look:

http://filmdrunk.uproxx.com/2012/04/...ryone-hated-it
The Hobbit ... Didn't Look So Good - Movies Preview at IGN
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/cinem...s.php?id=89583
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movi...pp-gatsby.html

[Brian Drysdale]

This is the same reaction as there was to Showscan, Douglas Trumbull's 65mm film shot at 60 fps format, they said it looked like video. In the end, it was only used used for theme park rides,

I understand there is a digital Showscan under development.

[Heath McKnight]

I thought 48p would've been much more film-like, but I guess not. I hate HDTVs with the hertz level cranked up over 60 Hz, because movies and TV shows (other than sports, news and reality) look like video. It's a psychological thing. 80+ years at 24 fps, and our minds are attuned to pretty much all TV narratives (comedies and soaps were 60i once) and films are 24p.

60p is terrific for sports, in my humble opinion. I don't think, personally, 60p should be used for films, but I thought 48p would've been "it."

heath

[Bill Thesken]

Originally Posted by Simon Wood

10 minutes of Hobbit footage was shown in Las Vegas, in 3d at 48fps. Here come the reviews:

" Everything looks crystal clear but it also looks a little too perfect and lifelike and because of that clarity, the fact that we're looking at sets and actors in costumes and make-up seems much more obvious. One of the nice things about film is that it adds a glossy look that smooths out the rough spots in sets, costumes and make-up.

I'd probably compare the look a bit to the old "Doctor Who" television shows in terms of it looking a lot like it was shot on television cameras, which may be hard to adjust to for those used to a certain way of watching films for 80 odd years."

]

Funny they should mention Dr. Who. One of my teenage kids discovered the show last month and is totally into it, watching every episode via Netflix through the computer to the TV.

[Jon Fairhurst]

I've seen a fair amount of motion interpolation to high frame rates and it always gives me a "reality" feel, which is wrong for film. I like the "dream" feel of 24 fps because the reality is that we're looking at actors in costumes with props on sets. Anybody who has been on a set or seen a prop or costume up close knows that it just doesn't have that bigger-than-life feel in person. If anything, the real stuff seems cheesy.

That said, fast motion 3D has a real problem with judder at 24 fps. 48 fps should really help with chases, fights, and action.

The ultimate solution might be to double the 48 fps frames to display 24 fps for dramatic scenes and to switch to true 48 fps only during the fast stuff. That might even subconsciously tell us to get jacked up - "so much for that dreamy, story stuff, this freaking dragon is real!"

Being able to flip frame rates within a feature would also let directors insert news, documentary, sports, and old soap segments that really feel like those genres.

Just like we can change shutter speed, grading, DOF, and exposure to give a specific feel, why not change frame rates too? Once technology removes the limitations, good directors will learn how and when to use (and abuse) it.

[Heath McKnight]

More on the subject:

Has Peter Jackson Lost it Shooting The Hobbit at 48fps?

heath

[Jordan Brindle]

I have been so excited for The Hobbit, but can't help but feel this 48p business may completely ruin it for me. Film is all about escapism, 24p is the vessel that takes you there. I am barely over Blu-Ray, it looks too life-like. I don't want to see the wrinkles on Stallone's forehead or the spots on Dicaprio's face. I guess the make-up team will have to be on top-form to pull off The Hobbit.

Still, i reserve judgement until ive seen it with my own eyes. It could be the best thing since sliced bread.

[Bruce Watson]

Sounds like a variation on a theme. That theme being, "I'm against change". Isn't this exactly the same stuff that was said about the move from standard def TV to HDTV? Especially the bit about the makeup, the costumes, and the sets? About how every TV news anchor would have to be replaced because they didn't have good enough skin?

Did any of that happen? Did people reject HDTV in droves because it looked "too real"?

And isn't it interesting that so many people in video are resolution nuts, always after that last little bit of resolution. But when it comes to a technology that would actually put that resolution to good use, they start complaining that it will be "too real"?

I suspect the critics of 48Hz doth protest too much.

[Thomas Smet]

I never viewed 48p as a magical frame rate because it is basically the same as 50p used in Europe. Perhaps it looks a bit less "real" then 60p but not by as much as one would hope. If you want to know what 48p looks like just render and watch some 50p material.

I am hoping the movie will also be shown on film prints which means it should hopefully convert down to 24p just fine. Assuming the shutter speed is the same as that used for 24p. Then in the end by dropping every other frame it should look the same as if it was shot at 24p.

If this is the case I for one will be watching the good ole 35mm version.

[Tim Polster]

This will go around in a circle because no matter what frame rate you shoot in, new televisions will turn it into an interlaced look.

I agree 48 fps is pretty close to 50p which is pretty fluid. A no-win situation with a lot of people not knowing what 24p even is in the general public.

[Jon Fairhurst]

I like change!

I want the frame rates to be variable so one can show 24fps, 48fps, 60fps or whatever within one feature.

In addition, I've seen enough motion interpolated video to know that high frame rates don't offer the same dreamlike qualities that one gets from 24 fps 2D content. Who knows? Maybe 20 fps is even cooler.

Some time ago, when Internet bandwidth was quite limited and we shot with a 30p camera, we would render 15 fps for low motion shorts (by dropping frames) and 30 fps for high motion stuff. (We often had gun flashes on the action stuff and couldn't skip frames without losing the ocassional flash.) For the dramatic shorts, 15 fps looked good and delivered more bits for each frame. It was a good tradeoff. Hey, when there's no motion 1 fps is enough. :)

Consider shutter speed. We can drag the shutter to near 360 degrees when we're starved for light and there's little motion. We shoot at 180 degrees when we want a "normal" look. And we can shoot a fast shutter when we want a frenetic mood. It's an artistic choice.

Same for frame rate. It should be an artistic choice. And just as we know not to use a fast shutter speed for a relaxing mood, we know that we don't want a fast frame rate for a fantasy experience. However, a fast frame rate might be perfect for a prison, war or gang movie. In those genres, making it feel absolutely real is often the goal.

The problem is that we don't have frame rate flexibility today. So, rather than an artistic choice, it's seen as a right-or-wrong technical choice.