Great news, guys—when “The Hobbit” comes out next month it’ll be released in no less than 5 different formats in theaters: 2D, 3D, IMAX, IMAX 3D, and the newest of them all, HFR 3D, a format so fancy it will look like a crappy TV soap opera, according to Gizmodo, a reality that has prompted Warner Brothers to get out in front of all the confusion with a press release about HFR 3D.
See, regular old film is shot at 24 frames per second. HFR technology displays the film at 48 frames per second. Ostensibly you’d think, what the heck, the more frames the better. More frames equals less space in between each one, equals a purer, smoother viewing experience, right?
Well, we already have technology that records at 60 frames per second—it’s called video. As in, regular crappy old video. The Warner Brothers press release describes 48 frames per second as “closer to what the human eye actually sees.” But real life doesn’t consist of frames at all. Gizmodo points out that displaying at a higher frame rate often gives picture a kind of cheap, TV soap opera look. For some reason 24 frames per second seems to be the sweet spot of creating that classy “cinematic” look.
So why do 48 frames per second at all? Hell man, why make the “Star Wars” prequels—because you can. And in this case, you can probably charge way more for tickets. Because the technology is new and fancy.
Peter Jackson has got a seriously good thing going here so far with all that is “Lord of the Rings.” Hopefully he’ll learn from George Lucas and not screw the whole thing up.
November 08, 2012 at 11:46 am, James Scholes said:
I remember when I use to play on my Sega Saturn way way way back in 95 some of the games i.e. Virtua Fighter 2 did 60fps. This has now become the norm for today (well for games anyway), so to me, I really don't see the big deal with this 48fps.
November 08, 2012 at 11:51 am, Liam Tipler said:
i will wait and see how it looks but i agree. i used to game at 120fps/hz years ago. i cant see why it would be an issue.
November 08, 2012 at 1:47 pm, Adam Celli said:
Gizmodo is NOT a real news source, by the way. The reason the shot they saw had a "soap opera" like look is because it hadn't had color correction or any editing done.
November 08, 2012 at 6:10 pm, Christopher Pitcher said:
What I really don't get, is what is the big deal about Soap Operas?
November 08, 2012 at 7:06 pm, Michael Fye said:
This is incredibly OLD news! I'm confused here…did I miss something?
November 10, 2012 at 6:54 am, Laura Riley Weinberger said:
Correct. However, this is why dozens of composite artists have been employed to add grain into each frame of the HFR version, in order to crap it up to the point of uncrappiness. So, by the time it's released, it shouldn't look too nasty.
November 13, 2012 at 5:08 am, Samuel Thomas said:
All the higher frame rate does is create a more realistic viewing experience. And Gizmodo isn't a legitimate news source in anyway.
November 25, 2012 at 8:49 pm, Matt Hakel said:
a voice of reason!!!!! finally!!!
November 14, 2012 at 8:55 pm, Christian Dannie Storgaard said:
Ever notice how choppy and discomforting fast movements look in 3D? Yup, that's the 24FPS messing with your head. Displaying 3D film at 48 (ideally 60) FPS ensures a smoother, less head-trippy experience. So, even though I know how fun it is to point and laugh at new technology, this actually makes perfect sense.
November 15, 2012 at 7:13 am, Matt Hakel said:
I'm glad the comments section for this is pointing out how damn stupid the author was in his reporting.
November 25, 2012 at 8:26 pm, Mauro Souza Silva said:
"Hopefully he’ll learn from George Lucas and not screw the whole thing up." Really? The Matrix stole the oscars from Episode 1 without mercy. Everyone knows that the Episode 3 is the only good prequel from him, the other two specially the first are nothing but an attempt to look like the classic Star Wars. What he can possibly learn from George Lucas then? How to get nominated for a Oscar? Lord of the Rings stole oscars from Episode 2 too… So let us be honest here. George Lucas is the one who needs to learn things here.
November 30, 2012 at 2:37 pm, Chad Bentley Cowell said:
Mauro, I believe that is the point he was trying to make… "Hopefully he'll learn from George Lucas and not screw the whole thing up [like George Lucas did]."
November 25, 2012 at 8:48 pm, Matt Hakel said:
yeah….welll. how about you do some research? the HFR tickets cost no more than the 3d tix….so fuck you.
November 27, 2012 at 9:29 pm, Mike Fitzgerald said:
I'm going to enjoy all the people here arguing that the Hobbit won't look bad, winging because the Hobbit looks bad. And then I'm going to be sad, because the Hobbit is going to look bad.
December 04, 2012 at 9:59 am, ‘The Hobbit’ apparently not only looks crazy, but may make you barf | Death and Taxes said:
[...] movie so big it requires its very own fancy new format. Last month we noted that Peter Jackson shot “The Hobbit” 3D at 48 frames per second rather than the 24 frames film is usually shot at, and that it’ll be shown in a badass new [...]
December 11, 2012 at 4:39 pm, Jason McCann said:
If it looks anything like these stupid "motion smoothing" equipped TV's I'll pass. My god it looks terrible and I show everyone how to turn that garbage off on their TV's. WHEN THINGS MOVE THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE BLURRY!
December 12, 2012 at 8:07 pm, Christian Dannie Storgaard said:
This is frame rate, not motion blur. Don't worry, there'll be motion blur in the film. Also, "motion smoothing" is obviously post processing, The Hobbit is being _shot_ in 48 frames per second, not converted afterwards.
December 14, 2012 at 12:32 pm, Everyone seems to think ‘The Hobbit’ kind of sucks | Death and Taxes said:
[...] 1 min agoWell gang, reviews for “The Hobbit” are in, and unfortunately in addition to looking crazy in 3D and possibly making you barf, everyone seems to think that it kind of sucks.It’s charting a [...]
December 15, 2012 at 12:26 am, Jake Cadigan said:
wow almost took what you had to say into account till I saw your hatred for the new star wars. I'm sure your one of those people that would rather read a book than watch tv, thinks no good movies or music has come out since the 1970's. its your opinion sir but I have to say you are shutting out a lot of new great things simply because of your reluctance to try them or your romanticization of sentimentality. get out of your shell.