Peter Jackson Confirms He's Shooting The Hobbit at 48 FPS

[DEAD34345]

Sounds like a plan. Even though we're not supposed to be able to tell the difference beyond 30fps, I think it'll make the whole thing play out smoother.

http://www.boallen.com/fps-compare.html
Watch. Share. Destroy the ignorance.

cool quote at the bottom

"No way should films and TV be shot at 30fps. Unless you want No Country for Old Men to look like Days of Our Lives.

The goal of motion pictures is not to recreate reality, it's not even to show reality. I want to create a little psychic link between you and my pictures. I want to suck you into the world of the story, suspend your disbelief and make you forget about yourself and your life and just be in the moment of the film.

By not showing enough visual information, we force the brain into filling in the gaps... it draws you in even more. It's part of how you let go to the point where you can laugh or cry or feel tense or afraid or elated."

-Naim Sutherland

Sorry, but i find this quote stupid. We're supposed to "fill in the blanks" of action in-between each frame? That's just stupid. When people say stuff like that, they are usually referring to leaving things to the viewers imagination, which makes sense. Sometimes people can imagine things far better than a movie/game/whatever can portray them, and the fact that it is left for the viewer to imagine makes it have an even greater effect than if they showed the scene on-screen.

This does not apply to the frames between the frames we see on the screen. We aren't imagining extra frames between the frames that already exist. The only on-screen difference of having a higher frame-rate is that actions will appear slightly less jittery, and more lifelike. We lose nothing in having a higher frame-rate.

Maybe I'm just not understanding the quote fully, but it seems to make no sense. Please, correct me if I'm wrong with all this.

 

[Heart of Darkness]

And, somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think doubling the frame rate would actually double the file size. Might get you one and a half times.

Depends on the compression rate, but doubling the frame rate will double the amount of raw data.

 

[Rocketboy13]

I strongly suspect that this will not make any difference at all. But whatever, Jackson. You must have your reasons.

Someone beat me to it.

I'm guessing this is the sort of thing you would notice if you had spent your entire personal and professional life watching and manipulating movies, but a normal person doesn't have the eye for it.

 

[shadowform]

In all honestly? I can see this being a bigger move forward in making movies look better than 3d.

 

[Orcus The Ultimate]

Sarcasm aside, the raising of the Fames Per Second could truly mean the very end of DVDs...For films.

BINGO.

Director: "We've been using the same damn FPS for nine decades. Why hasn't anyone ever thought to change this?"

Executive: "Meh, what's the point, really? They'll buy and watch whatever we make. I see no reason to spend more money just to upset the apple cart that lays the golden egg."

Director: "I know, but don't you think it'd be nice to give them something more? Think of the fidelity we could achieve with twice as many frames per second! Hell, it's so much data you'd positively need a blu-ray to store it all!"

Executive: "... so people would have to buy blu-rays for this?"

Director: "Uh, yeah, I suppose. That's the only way we can deliver so much info."

Executive: "Interesting..."

Director: "As an added bonus, it looks like the switch might really improve 3D."

Executive: "... so it'll also make 3D viewing worthwhile?"

Director: "Um, sure, possibly."

Executive: "You've convinced me of the artistic merits of this expenditure. Let's do it. For the people."

While I agree that this could improve visual quality in films, it's pretty damn obvious why it has taken this long to change things. There wasn't any money in it until blu-ray and 3D came along. Now, armed with higher FPS, they're going to force everyone to buy those blu-ray players and 3D televisions by altering the product - as always, under the guise of "improvement".

Bleh. I wish I were wrong.

so do i... at least the only thing we can still do freely is dream, for now !

 

[MrTub]

Ugh...I don't like it, though I acknowledge I'm being a tight ass.

I like the old 24fps simply because it looks unreal (no pun intended). I've seen European stuff before and theirs runs at about 28 or 30 frames per second (I think, though it does run higher) and has always seemed somewat off to me. Must be out of habit.

I'd be open to having my mind changed though.

"our" stuff runs at 23.96(or something like that) the same amount of fps as "your" stuff

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

Oh boy! I sure do hope they raise it to 120fps, then we can all enjoy the quality it will produce for those with LCD monitors >.>

Sarcasm aside, the raising of the Frames Per Second could truly mean the very end of DVDs...For films.

Didn't the internet already spell the end of DVDs. Or was that just CDs?

 

[Dogstile]

Sounds like a plan. Even though we're not supposed to be able to tell the difference beyond 30fps, I think it'll make the whole thing play out smoother.

http://www.boallen.com/fps-compare.html
Watch. Share. Destroy the ignorance.

See, its brilliant, because despite watching that for ages I still can't see the difference between 30 and 60. Sorry dude

 

[fulano]

Ugh...I don't like it, though I acknowledge I'm being a tight ass.

I like the old 24fps simply because it looks unreal (no pun intended). I've seen European stuff before and theirs runs at about 28 or 30 frames per second (I think, though it does run higher) and has always seemed somewat off to me. Must be out of habit.

I'd be open to having my mind changed though.

"our" stuff runs at 23.96(or something like that) the same amount of fps as "your" stuff

Whaaaat?

Wait, gonna lurk a bit...

Yeah, I checked around and checked that you, using PAL, run at 25 progressive frames per second unlike us, who use NTSC, run at 24 progressive frames per second.

I believe the number 23.976 FPS is used to describe the frame rate of some feed that is transferred to NTSC television. Either way, you guys, have it a little smoother than we do, from what I could gather.

If anyone does know about this stuff, please contribute.

 

[MrTub]

Ugh...I don't like it, though I acknowledge I'm being a tight ass.

I like the old 24fps simply because it looks unreal (no pun intended). I've seen European stuff before and theirs runs at about 28 or 30 frames per second (I think, though it does run higher) and has always seemed somewat off to me. Must be out of habit.

I'd be open to having my mind changed though.

"our" stuff runs at 23.96(or something like that) the same amount of fps as "your" stuff

Whaaaat?

Wait, gonna lurk a bit...

Yeah, I checked around and checked that you, using PAL, run at 25 progressive frames per second unlike us, who use NTSC, run at 24 progressive frames per second.

I believe the number 23.976 FPS is used to describe the frame rate of some feed that is transferred to NTSC television. Either way, you guys, have it a little smoother than we do, from what I could gather.

If anyone does know about this stuff, please contribute.

Well when I watch series/movies on my computer it always says it run in 23.976 and even fraps says it runs in 24fps... but I do not know about broadcasting to a tv..

 

[bob1052]

Gonna be fun to pay an extra 5 bucks at the cinema for something that is not going to be impactful at all on the viewing experience.

Oh well, useless, new technology has already proven to be able to carry a bad film (Avatar) to success, and its not that I think The Hobbit will be bad (I'm really excited for it), but its good for business to be the first.

 

[Outright Villainy]

The blacks are absolutely terrible in cinemas and the resolution makes everything look so grainy.

[sub]I like the grainyness...[/sub]

 

[fulano]

Ugh...I don't like it, though I acknowledge I'm being a tight ass.

I like the old 24fps simply because it looks unreal (no pun intended). I've seen European stuff before and theirs runs at about 28 or 30 frames per second (I think, though it does run higher) and has always seemed somewat off to me. Must be out of habit.

I'd be open to having my mind changed though.

"our" stuff runs at 23.96(or something like that) the same amount of fps as "your" stuff

Whaaaat?

Wait, gonna lurk a bit...

Yeah, I checked around and checked that you, using PAL, run at 25 progressive frames per second unlike us, who use NTSC, run at 24 progressive frames per second.

I believe the number 23.976 FPS is used to describe the frame rate of some feed that is transferred to NTSC television. Either way, you guys, have it a little smoother than we do, from what I could gather.

If anyone does know about this stuff, please contribute.

Well when I watch series/movies on my computer it always says it run in 23.976 and even fraps says it runs in 24fps... but I do not know about broadcasting to a tv..

It depends where the show you are watching is coming from, I'd venture to guess. If it is intended for native U.S tv broadcast, then it natively should run at 24 ('cause it is NTSC), though I do not know if that's always the case as it may have something to do with the conversion process, in case you were watching something from Europe.

If you can, try watching some European show, Dr. Who, Prime Suspect, Spooks, or whatever, and see if there is a difference.

Either way, I've seen cases of home media (especially BluRay) that completely eschew those conventions and run and whatever the makers wanted them to--I've seen Pearl Harbor run at what seems to be 60 FPS, which was rather jarring 'cause at the same time, some shit in the background was running way lower. The same for Avatar, but less annoying.

Captcha: formales, danity

 

[MrTub]

Top gear and dr WHO runs at 24 fps and is in 720p and not blueray
Hate to post on mine iPhone-.-

 

[spectrenihlus]

Well i'm filming as INFINITI fps so nyeh.

Kinda sounds like that but whatever

 

[Omnific One]

I guess this means that movies will take up double the memory they do now. Imagine a 1080p, 3D, 48FPS , 2 hour movie: it'd take three Blue-Ray discs to fit it.

Not even nearly. 24 FPS Blu-Ray movies only take up about 1/3rd of the available space on a Blu-Ray disc as of current. Even ones in 3D.

I think Avatar in 1080p is some 15GB, double that and you've got 30GB (that's one Blue-Ray disc, right?) I was talking about a hypothetical behemoth of a movie that you'd need a Blue Table to store and knowledge of ENN to understand that reference.

The EXTENDED version of Avatar was about 15GB. The regular version was about 10. A dual-layer Blu-Ray disc can hold up to 50GB. So yea, no real danger of coming close to the limit unless you're looking at a movie upwards of three hours with special features. In which case the special features would probably get their own disc, as is typical.

And, somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think doubling the frame rate would actually double the file size. Might get you one and a half times.

With the right compression, you're right. Around 1.5x or so. I have no clue what the exact number is.

 

[Jamous]

I think this sounds like a good idea if it'll improve the quality of the film; which it might. I'll hold back on actual judgment till I see it, but I'm pretty hopeful that this'll be epic.

 

[gsf1200]

To the guy who can't tell the difference between 30 and 60fps, watch the corners of the block. They noticeably jump at 30fps.

 

[noxymoron19]

I am worried by the decision to do it in 3d....

I would be worried to. But Peter Jackson being the genius he is has put me at ease a bit. He's not one to make bad choices at the expense of his movies like other 3D movies do.