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.”
R. Norter “You get used to this new look very quickly and it becomes a much more lifelike and comfortable viewing experience.” Peter Jackson would say that, wouldn’t he? Having seen ‘The Hobbit’, I can tell you I did not get used to the new look at all. The viewing experience is so lifelike as to rob the film of all magic whatsoever: you see very clearly it is a bunch of actors in costumes in front of often wobbly sets, with every rubber prosthetic appearing extra rubbery. Add on 3D, which at times is less than convincing, and the viewing experience is anything but comfortable. I don’t get motion sickness in 3D, this time I did.
Just to add: the film is 169 minutes long, the script is dire, there is no tension or drama as the characters simply run from one set up to the next, the majority of the cast (the dwarves) merges into one indefinable clump, the SFX are at times of very variable quality and the colour palette is overwhelmingly dark. For the record, I really enjoyed ‘The Lord of the Rings’, this is nothing more than a money grab. Avoid.
HDW : It seems within the film industry that filming at the higher frame rates is going to catch on remembering that 24 fps has only been standard because at the time it was introduced technology could only produce a 24 frame rate recording and it became industry standard.
It’s not getting very good press and by our own readers experiences the 48 fps version is to be avoided at all costs, I think James Cameron who has said his next production will be shot at 48fps should fully assess the Hobbit before filming his next film.
3D at high motion has always caused certain people to feel sick so there is nothing new here, it seemingly takes about 20 minutes for the brain to accept the 48fps before you start to view it at “normal speed”.
DVD playerys and televisions will need a firmware upgrade if we are to be able to watch 48fps Blu-ray DVDs.
Cinema audiences will dictate if 48fps is to be the future and I can assure you the last thing a hot auditorium needs is a child puking up their MacDonalds causing mass sickness throughout the theatre.