Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
The Hobbit (2012 - 2014)
Peter Jackson says some interesting things about shooting at 48fps. Unlike 3D, this seems really to advance filmmaking in general. I´m very interested in watching the result.
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=76341
Peter Jackson on Shooting The Hobbit at 48 fps
Source: Peter Jackson April 12, 2011
Peter Jackson has updated his Facebook page with a post talking about why they are shooting The Hobbit films at 48 frames per second (fps) versus the usual 24 fps. You can read the post below and view a couple of new photos from the set:
Time for an update. Actually, we've been intending to kick off with a video, which is almost done, so look out for that in the next day or two. In the meantime, I thought I'd address the news that has been reported about us shooting THE HOBBIT at 48 frames per second, and explain to you what my thoughts are about this.
We are indeed shooting at the higher frame rate. The key thing to understand is that this process requires both shooting and projecting at 48 fps, rather than the usual 24 fps (films have been shot at 24 frames per second since the late 1920's). So the result looks like normal speed, but the image has hugely enhanced clarity and smoothness. 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. 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 3-D. It looks great, and we've actually become used to it now, to the point that other film experiences look a little primitive. I saw a new movie in the cinema on Sunday and I kept getting distracted by the juddery panning and blurring. We're getting spoilt!
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.
None of this thinking is new. Doug Trumbull developed and promoted a 60 frames per second process called ShowScan about 30 years ago and that looked great. Unfortunately it was never adopted past theme park use. I imagine the sheer expense of burning through expensive film stock at the higher speed (you are charged per foot of film, which is about 18 frames), and the projection difficulties in cinemas, made it tough to use for "normal" films, despite looking amazing. Actually, if anybody has been on the Star Tours ride at Disneyland, you've experienced the life like quality of 60 frames per second. Our new King Kong attraction at Universal Studios also uses 60 fps.
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.
Film purists will criticize the lack of blur and strobing artifacts, but all of our crew--many of whom are film purists--are now converts. You get used to this new look very quickly and it becomes a much more lifelike and comfortable viewing experience. It's similar to the moment when vinyl records were supplanted by digital CDs. There's no doubt in my mind that we're heading towards movies being shot and projected at higher frame rates.
Warner Bros. have been very supportive, and allowed us to start shooting THE HOBBIT at 48 fps, despite there never having been a wide release feature film filmed at this higher frame rate. We are hopeful that there will be enough theaters capable of projecting 48 fps by the time The Hobbit comes out where we can seriously explore that possibility with Warner Bros. 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. It is a situation we will all be monitoring carefully. I see it as a way of future-proofing THE HOBBIT. Take it from me--if we do release in 48 fps, those are the cinemas you should watch the movie in. It will look terrific!
Read more: Peter Jackson on Shooting The Hobbit at 48 fps - ComingSoon.net http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=76341#ixzz1JLbFIKly
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=76341
Peter Jackson on Shooting The Hobbit at 48 fps
Source: Peter Jackson April 12, 2011
Peter Jackson has updated his Facebook page with a post talking about why they are shooting The Hobbit films at 48 frames per second (fps) versus the usual 24 fps. You can read the post below and view a couple of new photos from the set:
Time for an update. Actually, we've been intending to kick off with a video, which is almost done, so look out for that in the next day or two. In the meantime, I thought I'd address the news that has been reported about us shooting THE HOBBIT at 48 frames per second, and explain to you what my thoughts are about this.
We are indeed shooting at the higher frame rate. The key thing to understand is that this process requires both shooting and projecting at 48 fps, rather than the usual 24 fps (films have been shot at 24 frames per second since the late 1920's). So the result looks like normal speed, but the image has hugely enhanced clarity and smoothness. 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. 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 3-D. It looks great, and we've actually become used to it now, to the point that other film experiences look a little primitive. I saw a new movie in the cinema on Sunday and I kept getting distracted by the juddery panning and blurring. We're getting spoilt!
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.
None of this thinking is new. Doug Trumbull developed and promoted a 60 frames per second process called ShowScan about 30 years ago and that looked great. Unfortunately it was never adopted past theme park use. I imagine the sheer expense of burning through expensive film stock at the higher speed (you are charged per foot of film, which is about 18 frames), and the projection difficulties in cinemas, made it tough to use for "normal" films, despite looking amazing. Actually, if anybody has been on the Star Tours ride at Disneyland, you've experienced the life like quality of 60 frames per second. Our new King Kong attraction at Universal Studios also uses 60 fps.
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.
Film purists will criticize the lack of blur and strobing artifacts, but all of our crew--many of whom are film purists--are now converts. You get used to this new look very quickly and it becomes a much more lifelike and comfortable viewing experience. It's similar to the moment when vinyl records were supplanted by digital CDs. There's no doubt in my mind that we're heading towards movies being shot and projected at higher frame rates.
Warner Bros. have been very supportive, and allowed us to start shooting THE HOBBIT at 48 fps, despite there never having been a wide release feature film filmed at this higher frame rate. We are hopeful that there will be enough theaters capable of projecting 48 fps by the time The Hobbit comes out where we can seriously explore that possibility with Warner Bros. 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. It is a situation we will all be monitoring carefully. I see it as a way of future-proofing THE HOBBIT. Take it from me--if we do release in 48 fps, those are the cinemas you should watch the movie in. It will look terrific!
Read more: Peter Jackson on Shooting The Hobbit at 48 fps - ComingSoon.net http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=76341#ixzz1JLbFIKly
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
and yes, i also agree with you Luds on 3D.. it's old hat in my opinion.... the hook for this expensive addition to film is to make you feel "immersed in the action" but...
1.) there is too much darn flicker
2.) the 3D experience is only confined to the dimension of the screen which it's being projected on to - meaning that you can't turn your head and see stuff fly past you, it's only ever directly in front of the screen at all times...
3.) our eyes cannot see foreground/middle-ground/background all in focus at the same time - something that 3D does, at least the films I have seen recently - everything is in focus, not just the subject matter.. so in my opinion, this does not enhance the perception of "being there" - it only adds further distraction..
4.) while 3D does have it's uses for action heavy films - I have yet to see it's purpose for drama... 3D is purely genre specific - in no way, at least in my opinion can it improve on comedy or drama, to make a scene more emotional - even if you did (and as it the point with 3D today) you spend half your time being distracted by the effects, that you start to lose sight of the story as a whole..
bottom line, 3D is a gimmick - an expensive gimmick, that is sadly being forced onto us now that they are making 3D TVs.... (not sure if i can say this here but..) only douche-bags sit at home, by themselves, with their stupid 3D glasses, and watch their 3D TV.... it makes about as much sense as motion control gaming by yourself - sorry, don't see the need - am i really going to be jumping around in front of my TV at 3 in the morning by myself, in a t-shirt and boxers?? No.... i apply the same principles here with 3D.... it's a fad that will hopefully be shown the door soon (though it likely won't) - because it adds absolutely nothing of creative value to a story... and telling stories is what film making is about, not about how many digital effects can we cram in so the kiddies have something to spooge to when they get home..... the only thing that 3D does, is mask just how terrible some movies really are..
I agree with the whole gimmick aspect. I like 3D cartoons, to me 3D is something that goes well with CGI, and highly targeted to the younger demographic. I have yet to see sports in 3D, and again, the major turn off is to wear these stupid glasses. If I'm to watch 3D TV, first of all, I'd need 3D networks and there are very few. Secondly, when the technology for 3D TV without glasses gets by, I'll reconsider.
Now back to the 48fps, I think that this will be a huge improvement and really look forwards to seeing the result for a major motion picture. This is something that everyone can adapt to, films and television and will increase quality across the board.
though i do agree, there might be some of that "charm" lost in the transfer if this does indeed go over well - i don't know how to describe it... but i am all for increasing the quality of film - but i feel the industry needs to worry about improving quality behind the camera, as well as the footage itself lol.
Very much looking forward to seeing the result, however.
using standard film, yes - but with DSLRs it's as easy as a quick setting change in the options menu... and with more and more film making cameras becoming digital, it'll be just as simple... and if we reach a point where projectors are purely digital - then it's as easy as loading up file, instead of reels..
1:4 people get head aches by watching 3-d, and most people get motion sickness Goodbye a good portion of profits and as haserot pointed out about 3-D TVs. I was in best buy in june and i put the glasses on and no 3-D. A shop keeper came up to me and said "To get it to work you've got to do this and that and that and this" I just walked off. :-?
Still, whilst the majority of projectors aren't digital right now, you'd still have a lot of processing that would end up being very costly.
Yes, that will be the costly part - as 24 FPS is still the film processing standard....
but yes, digital IS the way to go anymore - #1, you don't have to worry about wasting film stock, instead your simply dealing with memory space on a card.. #2, editing is much easier to do on a computer, than on a big cutting machine (unless you've used one for years and are more proficient at it) - but not only that, it's easier to color correction digital video than to do it using film.. #3, it really saves on cost - again, don't have to worry about annoying film stock, until your ready to print it out for theater use..
Anyway, rant over.
Every movie that get shown in theaters, there is one copy of the film that is kept for the archives. In France alone, there is about 800 copies for major releases, 300 for smaller movies. With digital copies, no problem, as one copy is kept, the others are re-used for new movies. But with reels, only one is kept, and the others are burned.
Now, for 799 copies of Harry Potter 4, which is 2.5 hours long, that is 2300+ kilometers of highly toxic reels that are burned.
First video from set
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10150223186041807&oid=141884481557&comments
Downloadable version, please!
Can't wait for this. Hopefully the public will be more than happy to have waited 9 years as well.
The Hobbit: Part 1 will most likely be the biggest film of 2012 with The Dark Knight Rises not far behind it. The Amazing Spider-Man and Bond 23'll be in the top 10 as well. A very big year for film, next year.
I think the result should matter. As with all advancements that make the technical side seemingly easier, there is a danger that talent is disregarded and that this becomes visible in the endresult. But such developments always demand a certain change of vantage point. The important thing is that the filmmakers keep in mind their basic directive: to make a good film. Then technical advancements become useful tools. Admittedly things like CGI led to a variety of results opposing this directive, so a certain danger seems unavoidable.
Man, How old was he in the LOTR trilogy and how young is he in The Hobbit?
I believe the story of the The Hobbit will be told to Frodo in a post-The Lord Of The Rings world and as he hears it's we'll see it. So a "Flashback" if you will.
http://www.totalfilm.com/news/first-official-images-of-bilbo-baggins-in-the-hobbit-arrive
it's also just a little easier when Jackson has an established and timeless novel in which to work from - instead pulling CGI clown hankerchiefs out of his a** like Lucas did..
Here's hoping it's just as good as the last three films.
The Hobbit trilogy could well happen, with Jackson looking to do two months more filming next summer.