Preview Screeners Balk At 'Hobbit' Frame Rate

http://www.npr.org/2012/04/30/151713708/preview-screeners-balk-at-hobbit-frame-rate

Here's what I feel are the important parts. It's an ungraded, unfinished film that was screened. When we talk about 4K video, that's higher resolution that film (which is only 2K as they point out in this article). And new Dolby system with speakers across the ceiling. The "film look" is about to change for ever over the next year or two.

Alfred Hitchcock would be turning in his grave. Hey, I'm not all that much into super sharp images for films anyway. The soft subtle picture is usually the look I prefer. But no doubt it's coming...heck there was just a promo I saw on the first 8K television. Now is the time for inventors to thrive.

Sorry....just ramblin'

I find it funny that when filmmakers pass a certain threshold of super-success they then feel the need to start dictating what they feel will improve films from a technical gimmick perspective (as opposed to just making great films with great scripts)!

Lucas got his wish when he forced digital cinema onto the theatre owners with Star Wars.
Cameron strong-armed the cinemas to adopt 3D with Avatar.
Now Jackson is forcing higher frame rates with The Hobbit.

I guess that leaves only Spielberg to force theaters to adopt smell-o-vision? (Ooops, sorry Spielberg is still commented to shooting great content, great scripts, and still prefers film).

The funny thing is that 3D has been and gone several times in various different forms, and the audience always grew bored with the gimmick novelty.

High frame-rates were successfully demonstrated with ShowScan, and was rejected by audiences for exactly the same negative reasons as The Hobbit (looks like daytime TV).

Cameron seems to be the main driving force behind this; he pretty much forced theaters to pay hefty costs to install 3D systems, and now they ill have to pay again for higher frame rates (to address shortcomings of the 3D system - a great business model when you think about it). Cameron-Pace who makes 3D rigs happens to benefit financially as well.....

A good primer on all this nonsense by Davis Bordwell can be read here:

www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2012/04/22/it...e-king-of-the-world/

As he summarizes "if these guys are so passionately committed to quality, why don’t they just make better movies?".

3D is successful, many are now making profits, and we're seeing a steady stream of them coming, so the "fade" phase is proven to be over. It's here, films are making money, and theaters sell tickets to modern 3D. To still say it's a fad today is just ridiculous and defies the reality of the true state of 3D today. It's a tool in a filmmaker's resources, and there is nothing inherently evil about it, or any other modern, digital tool.

Oh, you must mean how silent and bw film was a fad that has died.

Digital projectors were not forced on to theaters in the ugly manner that article portrays. That article is not technical, it's someone's emotional rant. Digital projection is actually a more economic option once the investment is made. Not shipping costs, delays, risks, just download, play. No film reels to wear out. No moving parts to break down. And they can be upgraded much more easily. Not to mention they can play frame rates, sizes, that traditional film projectors can't. It's a digital projector, it can do lots and lots, it can do satellite feeds of live performance, which has become successful.

Since celluloid film is slowly going to die (no one manufactures film cameras any longer), it also helps maintain image quality.

These folks are doing good film, good scripts, good acting, but they have more options and tools available.

To say if it's not celluloid at 24p it's crap is the most ignorant things I've ever heard anyone say. I'm reminded of how recording studios going to pure digital workflows was met by the same arguments. People claiming that digital did not have the warmth and quality of vinyl was BS. Digital audio is cleaner, easier to deal with than analog. And we can very easily make it sound like vinyl. The process is to simply degrade the digital quality in the proper way.

The look of "film" is cultural, just like the sound of vinyl was, and has in fact always been changing. Sound was added. Film stocks got more and more clear, more sharp. Digital is simply following the same evolutionary path film has always been on.

There is nothing wrong with more clarity, smoother, glossier looks. Film stocks were chosen as an artistic expression, this is the same thing, just with more options.

So, you like the celluloid film look? Really? From which era of film? Silent, original BW, late BW, early color, modern color, which of the many, many "different" film looks and frame rates that have come and gone over the decades are you referring to? There is no one single look that has always existed. It's been evolving, getting sharper, frame rates have increased, this is simply the evolution that's always been going on in film.

Music went digital while a small segment of the industry was dragged kicking and screaming. Now no one would ever touch analog recording cause it's just too limited, expensive, and muddy sounding. Film will be the same way. Audiences adapt and accept improved quality over time. They always have, they always will, things will always evolve and change, you can enjoy it or hate it, but you can't stop it, and it's always for the better.

I guess the argument can boil down to the motivating factors: is this being done in the interest of the paying customer, for artistic reasons, or is it been done for financial gain?

Were the paying customers actually asking for higher frame rates and 3D? I could be wrong but I don't remember anyone complaining that the movies looked flat (before 3D) or that the movies looked too slow (before higher frame rates). I do recall people complaining about the standard of a lot of movies (in terms of production values, bad scripts etc).

3D is not doing as well as predicted. Its not going away anytime soon, but there is definitely a sense of fatigue setting in. I don't know a single (grown) person who prefers 3D over 2D in the cinema. I don't a single person that has bought a 3D TV (well some have them by default as a virtue of buying a new TV that has the capability, but they have chosen not to use the 3D feature).

I keep seeing the argument that "people will get used to 48fps (and 60fps)", well thats true. People will get used to all sorts of things if they are exposed to it for long enough. But that does not support the reason or want to change. A filmmaker could decide to interlace the footage on the big screen at 48fps and make it look exactly like TV if he wanted to, and people would eventually get used to it. But why make people get used to something in the first place?

There is an old mantra that states "if it aint' broke, don't fix it". Thats true, unless there is a profit to be made....

No one "asked" for smart phones either, but you own one.

No one "asked" for film, or sound, or color, but we have it.

It's called "innovation", it's human evolution. People have been growing in this manner since we've existed. Nothing is "forced" or done only for money.

Well, I'm just following on from a link that you provided where it seems there was a negative reaction by an industry group of professionals to a new 'product' - they "baulked" as you yourself put it.

Put it this way; in most industries or service providers its common practice to have focus groups to gauge customer reactions to new products. If the customers react negatively to the product then the people who designed it usually take this pretty seriously and go back to the drawing board.

In the post-Cameron world however there seems to be an elitist way of thinking, as summarized by Jacksons flippant "they'll get used to it' attitude" in regards to the overwhelmingly negative reaction to his new product. In most other industries that approach would not work. I wonder what is different here than in most other industries? Usually people listen to the customer, not tell them what they should like. No?

We'll have to agree to disagree. I should point out that I gave Avatar the benefit of the doubt, and went to see it in 3D. I'll give the Hobbit the benefit of the doubt and see how it works in 48fps 3D too.

I've seen 48fps off of a RED EPIC....and really, if people think that looks like the crap smoothmotion or whatever it is TVs do to make stuff look like crap with all those fake frames, then they should probably get their eyes checked.

This whole story is blown so out of proportion. Yes, it does look different. And it does take getting used to. But, you know, off the 40 second, 3 shot clip I saw, I was used to it by the second shot.

Jackson's been talking about 3D for years. You talk about letting the artist make a decision. He did. He chose 3D. Why is this any different than Scorsese doing it? Because it's Scorsese?

I actually think Jackson has some balls for doing this because he knew that shooting 3D, someone had to take this step. 3D, even in its best examples, looks like crap at 24. Just off the 48 clip I saw, I already know I will prefer 48 for 3D.

And, everyone talking about this negatively seems to forget....we've seen the trailer! it was 2D at 24! And it looked great! People will have a choice, and no one is forcing anything on anyone.

The main complaints I've been reading for the screening were that everything looked like sets, make up, costume, etc. From what I understand, most had greenscreen still in them. Does any one thing that that might be what made everything look fake? It always does to me when I see raw footage. The artifice stands out! And that has nothing to do with frame rate.

And then it was fine in scene with Bilbo and Gollum....the first scene that was shot and there for, probably long finished. People like that. It was also at the end of the reel. Might the have gotten used to it?

And across the board, everyone says it was easier on the eyes than 24fps 3D. That sounds like a success to me! I'm looking forward to seeing this the way Jackson wants it to be seen, 3D @ 48. And I'm looking forward to the first 3D screening where I don't get a headache.

1st you mention artistic integrity, then focus groups for products, 2 absolute opposites. A tad inconsistent, IMHO.

BenB wrote:
Not sure that I did mention artistic integrity?

However, its the nature of the beast that modern cinema is by nature one half art (the directors vision) and one half business (because it costs a lot of other peoples money to make it). So I don't see why it would be inconsistent to talk about art and business in the same sentence because thats the reality of filmmaking?

With regards to the focus group issue; I mention this in response to your post that brought it up (the screening was in fact a kind of demonstration to theatre owners and other industry professionals). It appears that there was a negative response to that demonstration. What is puzzling to me is that this seems to have had no effect; the response from the person who made the negative demonstration is just to say "they'll get used to it".

To me this seems like an odd response, and worth mentioning. If they did not value the opinion of the audience why did they even bother showing it to them?

I'm not passing any judgement here; as I said above I'm going to give it the benefit of the doubt and see it as Jackson wants it to be seen. I can't be fairer than that surely?

I don't understand what kind of response you'd expect? They're not going to change anything on a 500 million dollar, 2 film epic based on the response to some unfinished footage.

Besides, they were always planning to release both 48 and 24 versions of the film. The way I understand it, that was part of the reason for the decision for 48 was that it converted to 24 very easily and still looked great.

And saying they'll get used to it is probably a truth. It does take some adjustment. I mean, Jackson and the crew have been watching dailies like this for well over a year now. I'm sure it's not jarring to them anymore, but I bet it was at first.

I was wondering if 'more real' as Peter Jackson puts it, does = better.
Part of me thinks that there is a sugestive quality to 24 f footage that is like impressionist painting but I also love the clarity of still photos (48f). There is a place for both and i agree with you Simon about great storytelling being paramount.
I cant imagine what Eraserhead would be like in 48f
'Filmart' is a very young branch in visual creativity, I think its great that new tools and techniques become available, i like seeing moving image work that has been 'painted', in the sense that the filmmaker was making decisions guided by vision rather than engineering

I would really judge until I see the finished product on the big screen. Besides IMAX is going to be King right?