For the film geeks among us...

He will be the first to use it in a major motion picture

By Total Film | Apr 12th 2011

Peter Jackson has announced, via a post on his official Facebook page, that he will be shooting his adaptation of The Hobbit at the higher rate of 48 frames per second.

The usual rate is 24fps, and has been since its introduction to cinema in 1927. The Hobbit will be the first major motion picture in history to feature the upgrade

Jackson thinks, "after nine decades", it's time for a change.

In the post, he addressed the inevitable backlash from "film purists" by saying that audience will "get used to this new look very quickly" as it will bring about a "much more lifelife and comfortable viewing experience."

Full story

[Edited 4/12/11 21:10pm]

I understand James Cameron has been pushing for this for some time. Wonder if he's gonna feel beat to the punch?

K I read the article and still am scratching my head, what does 48 frames do for the average viewer?

lazycrockett said:

K I read the article and still am scratching my head, what does 48 frames do for the average viewer?

it makes panning left and right look smoother, and fast action scenes look less blurry

So it won't be digital then? I don't know that much about film

NDRU said:

So it won't be digital then? I don't know that much about film

i haven't read the story but you could run film at 48fps, or shoot digital at that or even higher speeds, in fact much higher speeds. that's how you get to see things like nature stuff and explosions in slow motion. the film/digital records at a faster frame rate and is then played back slower so you can see the detail better

I guess it's time for the film industry to get into the 21st century?

unique said:

lazycrockett said:

K I read the article and still am scratching my head, what does 48 frames do for the average viewer?

it makes panning left and right look smoother, and fast action scenes look less blurry

From what I'm understanding it'd also cut down significantly on the "strobing" effect of motion pictures. That'll alleviate a certain eye strain that we may or may not notice right now and make for a gorgeous, more lifelike fluidity of motion onscreen.

[Edited 4/13/11 11:26am]

unique said:

NDRU said:

So it won't be digital then? I don't know that much about film

i haven't read the story but you could run film at 48fps, or shoot digital at that or even higher speeds, in fact much higher speeds. that's how you get to see things like nature stuff and explosions in slow motion. the film/digital records at a faster frame rate and is then played back slower so you can see the detail better

Question: If Jackson went the film route, wouldn't 48fps double the cost of necessary film stock?

Lammastide said:

unique said:

i haven't read the story but you could run film at 48fps, or shoot digital at that or even higher speeds, in fact much higher speeds. that's how you get to see things like nature stuff and explosions in slow motion. the film/digital records at a faster frame rate and is then played back slower so you can see the detail better

Question: If Jackson went the film route, wouldn't 48fps double the cost of necessary film stock?

yup

and film stock is expensive. don't let me reel off the stats on film stock. not only do you have twice as much film shot, but twice as much film to print and distribute, higher shipping costs etc etc etc

plus replacing projectors in theatres that can't playback 48fps. that's not really a cost to factor in, as most theatres simply won't bother. so either they don't show it, or they show the 24fps standard print

and that's where the problem lies, in getting theatres to upgrade

What exactly is the benefit of film over digital these days?

I know the benefit of digital over film, but is there a visual benefit to film?

SagsWay2low said:

What exactly is the benefit of film over digital these days?

I know the benefit of digital over film, but is there a visual benefit to film?

people have decades of experience shooting and editing on film, they know the tricks of the trade, but digital HD is a new format, so people don't yet have that experience. you can have guys with literally 30 or 40 years experience who know how to get the best from shooting on film, but with RED you have literally novices

plus editing suites, print labs etc are still very much film based when it comes to movies

unique said:

SagsWay2low said:

What exactly is the benefit of film over digital these days?

I know the benefit of digital over film, but is there a visual benefit to film?

people have decades of experience shooting and editing on film, they know the tricks of the trade, but digital HD is a new format, so people don't yet have that experience. you can have guys with literally 30 or 40 years experience who know how to get the best from shooting on film, but with RED you have literally novices

plus editing suites, print labs etc are still very much film based when it comes to movies

Interesting.

One of my friends uses film in his photography. It shocked me when I found out.

He insist that the photographs have "more emotion."

unique said:

NDRU said:

So it won't be digital then? I don't know that much about film

i haven't read the story but you could run film at 48fps, or shoot digital at that or even higher speeds, in fact much higher speeds. that's how you get to see things like nature stuff and explosions in slow motion. the film/digital records at a faster frame rate and is then played back slower so you can see the detail better

yeah I get what frames-per-second is, I just wasn't sure if digital used the same concept

I only mention it because it seems more films are going digital nowadays, and I would be surprised to see an advance in film technology at this point

SagsWay2low said:

unique said:

people have decades of experience shooting and editing on film, they know the tricks of the trade, but digital HD is a new format, so people don't yet have that experience. you can have guys with literally 30 or 40 years experience who know how to get the best from shooting on film, but with RED you have literally novices

plus editing suites, print labs etc are still very much film based when it comes to movies

Interesting.

One of my friends uses film in his photography. It shocked me when I found out.

He insist that the photographs have "more emotion."

I can still see the difference with average cameras, but I'm not so sure about pro gear

SagsWay2low said:

unique said:

people have decades of experience shooting and editing on film, they know the tricks of the trade, but digital HD is a new format, so people don't yet have that experience. you can have guys with literally 30 or 40 years experience who know how to get the best from shooting on film, but with RED you have literally novices

plus editing suites, print labs etc are still very much film based when it comes to movies

Interesting.

One of my friends uses film in his photography. It shocked me when I found out.

He insist that the photographs have "more emotion."

That's interesting. I suppose it'd be the same difference diehard vinyl fans claim to detect over CDs.

unique said:

Lammastide said:

Question: If Jackson went the film route, wouldn't 48fps double the cost of necessary film stock?

yup

and film stock is expensive. don't let me reel off the stats on film stock. not only do you have twice as much film shot, but twice as much film to print and distribute, higher shipping costs etc etc etc

plus replacing projectors in theatres that can't playback 48fps. that's not really a cost to factor in, as most theatres simply won't bother. so either they don't show it, or they show the 24fps standard print

and that's where the problem lies, in getting theatres to upgrade

Wow.

It must be nice to be SUCH as badass that not only can you choose to double a good chunk of production costs, but force an intrinsic difficulty in your own distribution... and still have a rush of industry demand. It's like Jackson and Cameron are competing to be the Barbra Streisand of the film world!

But theatres running digital prints wouldn't have a big problem, would they? Only theatres with no digital projecting capability would suffer from having to upgrade equipment to accommodate 48fps, right? Do you have a ballpark figure off the top of your head as to how many theatres already have digital projectors?

[Edited 4/13/11 12:24pm]

unique said:

Lammastide said:

Question: If Jackson went the film route, wouldn't 48fps double the cost of necessary film stock?

yup

and film stock is expensive. don't let me reel off the stats on film stock. not only do you have twice as much film shot, but twice as much film to print and distribute, higher shipping costs etc etc etc

plus replacing projectors in theatres that can't playback 48fps. that's not really a cost to factor in, as most theatres simply won't bother. so either they don't show it, or they show the 24fps standard print

and that's where the problem lies, in getting theatres to upgrade

I imagine this is what they will do for the most part, and only certain theaters will show the better version.

But the high quality version will be there for the future so it may be worth the initial investment

Here's a link to one demonstration of what increased frames per second can do to a visual display. The benefits are subtle, especially on a small monitor, at such a short running time and with an image so simple. But imagine the increased fluidity in the context of huge wraparound screens, 3+ hours and all sorts of visual elements flying every which way...

15 fps vs. 30 fps vs. 60 fps

its about time

NDRU said:

unique said:

yup

and film stock is expensive. don't let me reel off the stats on film stock. not only do you have twice as much film shot, but twice as much film to print and distribute, higher shipping costs etc etc etc

plus replacing projectors in theatres that can't playback 48fps. that's not really a cost to factor in, as most theatres simply won't bother. so either they don't show it, or they show the 24fps standard print

and that's where the problem lies, in getting theatres to upgrade

I imagine this is what they will do for the most part, and only certain theaters will show the better version.

But the high quality version will be there for the future so it may be worth the initial investment

i think theaters need to upgrade anyway

Lammastide said:

unique said:

yup

and film stock is expensive. don't let me reel off the stats on film stock. not only do you have twice as much film shot, but twice as much film to print and distribute, higher shipping costs etc etc etc

plus replacing projectors in theatres that can't playback 48fps. that's not really a cost to factor in, as most theatres simply won't bother. so either they don't show it, or they show the 24fps standard print

and that's where the problem lies, in getting theatres to upgrade

Wow.

It must be nice to be SUCH as badass that not only can you choose to double a good chunk of production costs, but force an intrinsic difficulty in your own distribution... and still have a rush of industry demand. It's like Jackson and Cameron are competing to be the Barbra Streisand of the film world!

But theatres running digital prints wouldn't have a big problem, would they? Only theatres with no digital projecting capability would suffer from having to upgrade equipment to accommodate 48fps, right? Do you have a ballpark figure off the top of your head as to how many theatres already have digital projectors?

[Edited 4/13/11 12:24pm]

about 37,000 theatres across the world, that's about 55% of theatres

Lammastide said:

SagsWay2low said:

Interesting.

One of my friends uses film in his photography. It shocked me when I found out.

He insist that the photographs have "more emotion."

That's interesting. I suppose it'd be the same difference diehard vinyl fans claim to detect over CDs.

no, you can clearly see differences in visual, whereas differences in sound are much harder to notice. not to mention many people prefer the cleaner sound of cd