
For the past year, James Cameron has been telling anyone who will listen that a lot of the problems of 3D would be worked out with a higher frame rate, rather than the old 24-frames per second standard that causes blurring and strobing when you move the camera too fast, which in turn gets exacerbated by 3D. Now Peter Jackson has announced that he’s shooting The Hobbit at 48 frames-per-second, and hopes it will be one of the first films projected at the higher rate. Here’s the word straight from Jackson’s beardy mouth.
Looking at 24 frames every second may seem ok–and we’ve all seen thousands of films like this over the last 90 years–but there is often quite a lot of blur in each frame, during fast movements, and if the camera is moving around quickly, the image can judder or “strobe.”
Shooting and projecting at 48 fps does a lot to get rid of these issues. It looks much more lifelike, and it is much easier to watch, especially in 3-D.
Originally, 24 fps was chosen based on the technical requirements of the early sound era. I suspect it was the minimum speed required to get some audio fidelity out of the first optical sound tracks. They would have settled on the minimum speed because of the cost of the film stock. 35mm film is expensive, and the cost per foot (to buy the negative stock, develop it and print it), has been a fairly significant part of any film budget.
So we have lived with 24 fps for 9 decades–not because it’s the best film speed (it’s not by any stretch), but because it was the cheapest speed to achieve basic acceptable results back in 1927 or whenever it was adopted.
Now that the world’s cinemas are moving towards digital projection, and many films are being shot with digital cameras, increasing the frame rate becomes much easier. Most of the new digital projectors are capable of projecting at 48 fps, with only the digital servers needing some firmware upgrades. We tested both 48 fps and 60 fps. The difference between those speeds is almost impossible to detect, but the increase in quality over 24 fps is significant.
We are hopeful that there will be enough theaters capable of projecting 48 fps by the time The Hobbit comes out. However, while it’s predicted that there may be over 10,000 screens capable of projecting THE HOBBIT at 48 fps by our release date in Dec, 2012, we don’t yet know what the reality will be.
3D is stupid, and it’s only more realistic than high-def 2D in the sense that a pop-up book is more realistic than a regular one. But they’re totally right about the frame rate. There’s no reason to use an old format that visibly can’t process motion as well as the eye. Your NTSC TV already projects at 29.97 fps, and motion looks much smoother. The higher frame rate on digital projectors will look sharper, allowing filmmakers to utilize better 3D, faster camera movements, quicker cuts, and– MOTHER OF GOD WHAT HAVE WE DONE?!?



This headline would be more interesting if “The Hobbit” was James Cameron and “48 frames per second” was the name of a public firing squad block.
3D is stupid, and it’s only more realistic than high-def 2D in the sense that a pop-up book is more realistic than a regular one.
People said similar things about the advent of sound in film and color in film. In fact, Hitler banned all sound-enhanced films in Nazi Germany because he feared it was another money-grab by the Jews. “An up-charge? For what? I can get the story just fine by reading the inter-titles!” The KKK fought hard to keep color out of films because they liked the clear distinction between black-and-white. This fact was alluded to by the color vs. black-and-white scenes in American History X. Historically, assholes have always resisted the next great advancement in cinema and I’m not just saying this because I’m financially invested in 3-D’s success.
Now there is less blur when the Hobbits look at each other all homo like. This nearly doubles the quality of homosexual glances.
It will look like a soap opera. Any cheap camera can shoot at an higher frame rate, and it will look like shitty video.
Besides, PJ lost all cred when he said ” It’s similar to the moment when vinyl records were supplanted by digital CDs.” uh… ok.
@Morton Salt 3D isn’t comparable to better sound at all. First off 3D is not new technology and it was a fad when it first emerged. Granted the old 3D was shittier, but the fact still remains. When they develop 3D glasses that go over my regular glasses comfortably and stop using stupid ‘its comming right for us!’ gimmicks with it then maybe it will suck less…. I just don’t see that day coming.
Where the hell am I?
48 fps will also make any slow motion that much more impressive. Imagine the glory of the inevitable Bilbo/random-bear-hobbit meatswing.
@Hammy, Sound wasn’t new technology. Edison sent wax cylinders with sound to be played concurrently with the earliest film demonstrations. Similarly, Three and four basic colors were painted onto the prints of most silent films until the 1920s. The current 3-D tech has as much to do with the old red-and-blue as current sound and color has to do with those examples. Additionally, they did develop 3-D glasses that fit comfortably over regular glasses. Perhaps this is yet another reason you should stop wearing sports goggles where ever you go. As for the gimmicks, that is at the fault of the film-makers, not the technology. It is the equivalent to a sudden violin screech in a horror movie. A cheap gimmick is a cheap gimmick, and let’s not pretend they only exist in 3-D. With all technology, as the “artists” get used to it (and we all get over the novelty) the obnoxious examples will become less common.
Awesome. Now I be bored at 48 frames per second.
Can be.
Time for afternoon coffee.
George Lucas has been shooting at 48fps since Empire…
…”fps” does stand for felines per sitting, right?
@morton I must have a giant fucking head cause there are like two things i remember from suffering through Avatar: 1. my head was being squeezed 2. shit was a blue or red blur.
maybe the blurring is fixed with 48fps? But I’m just not sold on spending an extra 4 bucks to have a headache at the end of two hours
…causes blurring and strobing when you move the camera too fast…
I have this same problem with my junk.
@Morton
Never mind that Hitler INVENTED 3D.
I’d much rather watch a movie about Bobbits getting their dicks cut off… But on second thought, that doesn’t sound as cool as it sounded in my mind.
@hambone, If you are paying $4 extra, you are going to the wrong theater. I won’t say anything about Avatar’s blurriness; who am I to say how you perceived an experience? Perhaps your head is unusually large.
@Dingy, Hitler didn’t invent jack shit. Just because something is on the internet, doesn’t make it true. (For an example of this, see my original post in this thread.)
[Meanders up, sucking on a Push-Up]
I skeet at 48fps. Faps Per Second.
Won’t mean shit when I go watch this on a head full of acid.
Crappie gives the guy in Tool’s “Sober” video a run for his money in arm speed.
Seriously, I’m interested in how this will look when showed at 48fpr. There have been several films shot at 48 but projected at 24. The beach assault in Saving Private Ryan, chases in Apocalypto, blood bath rave scene in Blade. The effect was always very hyper realistic. Which worked great in scenes where that effect was desired. The effect was unnerving because we had become used to seeing blurry bits of stuff flying about but now saw those bits clearly, but the stroboscopic effect was…odd. So if projecting at 48 gets rid of that strobe reality, the end result should be eye popping.
Shitouttacunt cockcowboy armpit rape, FUCK!
^ pallet cleanser.
[points at oose]
Awesome.
I saw this yesterday but I didn´t send it to you becuase i thought you would find it boring. which it kinda is. I guess you´re turning in to a nerd, NERD!
@crapbasket. Are you sure they didn’t just bump up the shutter angle (shutter speed)? Because if they knew ahead of time that the scene would play back at 24fps, this would have achieved the exact same effect. Seems like an obvious waste of money.
Peter Jackson or Guilermo Del Toro, it just seems whoever takes the director’s chair isn’t allowed to bring a razor with them to the set. I sure hope neither of them accidentally gets filmed in the 48 frame lens, because audiences everywhere would be subject to a hairy, blubbery, suffocation due to their 3D dumpy bodies.
I work in 3D CGI, and rendering double the frames means the costs for super servers to crank this imagery out will double. The budget for the two hobbit films is 300 million, I would say this will easily climb to 400 mill if the new frame rate is not factored in.
All of that so we can see this moving at double the frame rate, yikes.
[glenjplayer.com]