Jump to content

The Hobbit is being filmed at 48 fps - Peter Jackson

The Rover

By The Rover
in Ramble On

Recommended Posts

The Rover

The Rover

Posted
Posted

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:

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Patrycja

Patrycja

Posted
Posted

Really looking forward to the movie/movies, especially after watching Peter Jackson showing us all the cool stuff that is beeing used.

Hope he keeps updating his blog without too many spoilers.

Looks beautiful! Loving the behind the scenes sneak peeks!

The Goblin tunnels below the Misty Mountains!

And Gandalf is baaaaack!!! :cheer: (shut up, ok, don't make fun - I can't help it :P )

Jackson has lost so much weight. He looks great. Good for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
Anjin-san

Anjin-san

Posted
Posted

Hi all,

I agree Brad,and welcome to the 3 hours of lunacy :P ,no need to shoot the film in 3-D,many classic are just fine in 2,...

However,there is also no need for PJ to add his own junk into the film.The book if I can recall is only 180(?) pages long.An easy 2-2 1/2 film.

KB

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
Anjin-san

Anjin-san

Posted
Posted

We've known about this unnofficially since March, but it's official now - New Line, MGM, and Warner Brothers have announced that Peter Jackson's HOBBIT films are titled THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY, to be released December 14, 2012, and THE HOBBIT: THERE AND BACK AGAIN, to be released December 13, 2013.

The titles are very much from the books, and appropriate for the films, I'd say. So much of the cast from THE LORD OF THE RINGS is returning - some of them who weren't in THE HOBBIT originally, but I trust Peter Jackson and I think he'll make the characters work in these films. I'm especially curious to see Saruman (Christopher Lee) as it was around the time of THE HOBBIT that Saruman decided that he wanted the Ring for himself and it should be a quietly malevolent performance, Saruman plotting without Gandalf suspecting anything amiss at all. Lee should be perfect at this.

I'm becoming more accustomed to the added story that Jackson, Boyens, and Walsh are bringing to the prequels - as any HOBBIT fan knows, an awful lot was happening behind the scenes while Bilbo was on his adventure, and if the films address that, I think it's going to be quite interesting to see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
lzzoso

lzzoso

Posted
Posted

I'm not that old but I find the trend in movies to be annoying as well. I was watching Raging Bull the other day and was just floored how even in the 1980s a film could be made in black and white and have more visual appeal than any number of these computer generated big box office deals today. It's as if real cinematography has become a lost art.

I agree. But that is always the case with a Martin Scorsese/Robert De Niro movie. "Raging Bull" was voted the best movie of the 1980's and "Raging Bull was filmed in 1979 but was officially released in the theaters in 1980. What I am saying is that, according to the voters, "Raging Bull" was the best movie out of all of the movies that were released in the whole decade of the 1980's. 1980 - 1989, "Raging Bull" is considered the 4th greatest movie of all-time, according to the American Film Institute (AFI). That happens to be a fact, not my opinion. If anyone wants complete verification, go to the AFI website and that will corroborate what I have said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Texas Melanie

Texas Melanie

Posted
Posted

I'm not that old but I find the trend in movies to be annoying as well. I was watching Raging Bull the other day and was just floored how even in the 1980s a film could be made in black and white and have more visual appeal than any number of these computer generated big box office deals today. It's as if real cinematography has become a lost art.

Agree, agree, agree!! The Indiana Jones' movies are on this weekend and the latest one, in my opinion, has the worst special effects. Brad, have you seen "On The Waterfront"? Again, a beautifully made movie. I HATE 3D movies! They don't add anything to the movie experience but less money in my wallet. What a ripoff! Luckily my son gets headaches from watching them, as I do, so we avoid them.

Back to topic: I have to admit something here that I am not proud of....I have not seen any of the LOTR movies. We own them cause my hubby bought them and he has seen them but I have not. I just can't seem to find either the time or patience to sit down for, god knows how long and digest the plot and dialogue. Lame I know but true.dry.gif But I LOVE the original Star Wars movies. Am I cool again? blink.gif Wait...don't answer that! tongue.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuperDave

SuperDave

Posted
Posted

I look forward to seeing this, I saw all the Lord of The Rings series, this should be good!:D

As I have. Hopefully PJ does a great job with this as the others. Especially, the detailed scenery and great use of the locations in NZ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Patrycja

Patrycja

Posted
Posted

Agree, agree, agree!! The Indiana Jones' movies are on this weekend and the latest one, in my opinion, has the worst special effects. Brad, have you seen "On The Waterfront"? Again, a beautifully made movie. I HATE 3D movies! They don't add anything to the movie experience but less money in my wallet. What a ripoff! Luckily my son gets headaches from watching them, as I do, so we avoid them.

When they're a substitute for a good story, you're right, it's a shame. Take the second Transformers movie, for example. But LOTR, among many others, uses CG effects so well that often times people aren't even aware they're there, because they're weaved into and complement the story in such a way that makes the cinematography an integral part of telling the tale.

As for 3D, well, I was hoping it was just a one-off fad, but it has since unfortunately taken off. I did like the animated 3D "A Christmas Carol" but I also find it a distraction over all because it does make my stomach church a bit -- too much movement. It's a show piece that has yet to resolve the balance between technical capability and serving the story. Just because they've got it, doesn't mean they've got to use it every time.

It certainly is. I visited the north and south islands back in 2001 and it's a pretty amazing place

Lucky you! It's on my 'one of these days' dream list of places to visit. Any chance of your posting some pics for our viewing pleasure? Vicarious travels are better than none at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 2 months later...
  • 1 month later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

LEDZEPPELIN.com

Site Navigation

  • LedZeppelin.com Home
  • News
  • Discography
  • Merchandise
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy

    • Led Zeppelin Timeline

  • Concert Timeline / Database
  • Events
  • Photos
  • Video
    • ×
    ×
    • Create New...