Hobbit To Receive Only A “Select” Release At 48FPS, And That’s A Bad Thing

Bleeding Cool

There’s a shocking amount of misinformation and misunderstanding out there regarding ‘high frame rate cinema,’ such as the 48 frames per second format of The Hobbit or the projected 60 frames per second frame rate of the Avatar sequels.

Let’s clear up one bit of nonsense right away: you’ve almost certainly never seen anything shot and projected in one of those higher frame rates. If you’ve seen something in 48fps or 60fps on TV then what you saw was something played back at that frame rate but not produced at that frame rate. That’s a different thing entirely. Entirely. That involves artificial frames filling in the gaps between the ones that were actually recorded, and these “junk” frames don’t make for a good experience.

So, don’t think that The Hobbit is going to look like some crappy, overly shiny football game you saw one time. Because it isn’t.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Crazay1538d ago

This is without a doubt the best explanation of the higher frame rate I've seen out there. It actually made me far more interested in seeing what all the excitement/detraction is about. When I watch those new TVs with 240hz refresh rate, I think the image looks strange and and plasticy...or something. I can't quite put my finger on it it just looks screwy to me. This is exactly what I envision the higher frame rate movie shoots look like but maybe I'm wrong.

Has anyone here at Filmwatch actually SEEN a 48fps+ movie?

darklordzor1538d ago

Yeah I've seen it done a couple times and displayed properly. I think it is pretty gorgeous looking, but I can certainly see why it wouldn't be for everyone. I can't say I feel it's the 'future of cinema' but I think it could be a treat to see these big blockbuster films presented in such a way.

adorie1538d ago

Seems more appropriate for gaming, imo.

But movies like Troy on Blu-Ray.. it looks phenomenal!

darklordzor1538d ago

I wonder if this was the plan all along, or if this is a result of the negative feedback they got from the presentation they did for Hobbit showing it at 48fps? I want to say this was the plan all along.

StarWarsFan1538d ago

If they stand by it so much, they should just make the 48fps a wide release and not just selective. I don't see much of a point if it's a select release. I don't think mass amounts of people are going to go out in droves to seek out 48fps, so I doubt it'll make an impact in general. They should just leave it as a standard across the board for the film's release and go with it.

Inthrax1537d ago

Would I be mistaken to say that Public Enemies, starring Christian Bale, was shot in a higher frame rate in certain areas? In the cinema, it was extremely noticeable and most certainly unpleasant to watch.

edwest1537d ago (Edited 1537d ago )

The frame rate issue was an issue with the cameras in low lighting. You'll notice in Public Enemies and Collateral that the footage looks like 24fps film in broad daylight but looks like cheap video at nightime. This is because of the digital cameras not being able to cope with low light levels, thus there is a blurring effect caused by the 360 degree shutter angle (on the Red cameras).

It's odd, as so many movies have been shot on digital since then and look fine in low light.