So earlier this week, Peter Jackson announced that he is shooting (and plans on projecting) at 48 frames per second. Have we ever seen 48fps before? I’ve seen 60 and I’ve seen 30 and I’ve seen higher frame rates played back at 24p in slow motion, but I’m not sure I’ve ever seen 48fps. Does it look like 24p? Or does it feel like a soap opera? I am very concerned about what seems to be a movement among some filmmakers to shoot at higher frames rates. From what I’ve seen, I much prefer the look of 24p. Does anyone out there have any helpful information about this? Thanks!
Yeah, I think I read (maybe on Bordwell’s blog) that James Cameron is going to be using 48fps for the Avatar sequels (I saw the first one because it was supposed to be a great technological leap, but I’m not getting suckered into any sequels).
It’ll be interesting to see, though. A lot of new TVs have that, I don’t know what they call it – cinema motion? – where the image looks way to fluid. I can’t stand when I go to someone’s house and they have that on. Ugh. My hope is that 48fps doesn’t do that to my eyes. Otherwise, I’m gonna start hating movies.
Literally the entire time I was watching this video, I was thinking to myself, “Add motion blur”, the effect every digital graphics program has to make the graphics…. look real.
So, this like six minute long video keeps basically saying over and over again “Action. Action films. Clarity. Sharper. Action.” And I keep thinking, “And then you’ll need to add motion blur….”
However, what the video fails to mention is the reduction of things like jutter, that bending effect during pans from video, and that it’s talking about 60p, not 60i, which reduces the ugliest video quality of all, interlaced footage (don’t know why it still exists, but that’s a different issue). Also, I looked up some of the things on Peter Jackson’s stuff, and it mostly has to do with 3D—the blur from 24p in 3D causes all sorts of problems as well as headache, but at higher frame-rates you can reduce those artifacts. Predictably, Cameron and Lucas are also going all 48p googly, ’cause they always have an opinion on the newest technical gewgaw.
It’s like twice the number of crap frames per second! Yeah!
Peter Jackson and James Cameron should be working with ZERO frames per second.
Yeah, I watched this the other day. I think it looks horrible. I honestly don’t know what all the hype is about. It looks like really crisp home video. I really can’t imagine movies going in this direction. If someone out there can articulate why this is better, I am all ears.
Here we have reactions to an early screening of some footage at 48fps. Check it out it. They were none too pleased.
I think it will down to artistic choice, and then it will come down to how an audience reacts to the image.
And Blue, come on, Jackson and Cameron (and I’ve made it abundantly clear I loath Cameron) aren’t really the issue here, it’s technology, and there is nothing wrong with experimenting and that’s what this is. Without people testing the limits of what can be done in cinema, where would be be?
Am I gonna wait in line in the rain for four days to see a 48fps, 60fps action film, no, but neither am I gonna wait five rains in the rain to see a 24fps action film.
Test it, try it, and let’s see what we get, but still my interest level in it is low.
Avatar 2 in Imax 3D at 48fps? Sensory overload and not in a good way.
That said there is nothing inherently wrong with using an increased framerate. It will definitely be an adjustment though.
I agree with Uli Cain on the experimental aspect of this, but I must also set forward my own criticism. I am noticing the big emphasis upon making films more and more “real”, which is an absurdity because a film can only be as real as the viewer believes it to be, regardless of what technological advancement (or regression, depending on one’s point-of-view) there is to give the illusion a greater depth of field. Not to end so briefly, callously and simplistic, but rather than trying to make them seem more “real”, perhaps they (those so heavily advocative of this technology and implementing it in their films) should try being more imaginative about them again – I fear they’re trying to replicate reality to make up for their lack of imagination and trying to bring the audience with them. Besides, “real” isn’t always real, especially through a lens.
Cameron and Jackson are the issue because they’ve become the technology’s main cheerleaders. They have a lot of clout because their movies make big money. However good or bad they may be as directors, they are the force behind 48fps. If they can cram 48fps down the exhibitors’ throats, forcing them to get projectors that run 48fps, then it may not be an artistic choice in the future, just as 1:33 isn’t much of an artistic choice now (for the most part).
I would like to see a poll of average moviegoers, asking if they feel that the frame rates in their movies are acceptable. The most common answer will probably be, “What’s a frame rate?” And that is when we will know for sure that 48fps is completely unnecessary.
I think the average movie goer will recognize that it looks like home video, like a BBC production, or like live TV, and feel like something is off without being able tio articulate it.
They might recognize it in a side by side test, but a blind poll would reveal that moviegoers don’t even know what a frame rate is and have no perceived problem with the 24 they currently see.
The negative responses coming out of Las Vegas make me think that now I really don’t have to see The Hobbit.
Thanks God for that.
People are accustomed to movies looking a certain way (24fps) and will notice a difference at 48fps even if they can’t articulate why.
@Santino – I had the same thought! I imagine that curiosity will get the better of me, though.
Yeah, me too. :(
The whole idea of going to 48fps to make it look more “realistic” seems ironic to me considering it’s being utilized for stylized, action-packed, epic fantasy-action scenes which is a very unrealistic thing for someone to film.
You all should take the time to read some of the user comments in this article discussing the 48fps being used in The Hobbit. The average movie goer, I assume that’s the majority of those who reply to the Huffington Post, average US Americans, said they didn’t like their HD TVs adjusting the frame rate to get that “soap opera look”, but eventually came to terms with it, and now love it and hate anything less and will gladly accept Peter Jackon’s decision to film in 48fps, because critical opinion is always opposite (apparently) of what the public’s take on art is.
“How can new technology be bad? What are you? A Luddite?”
But no need to fear. I don’t watch “The Number 1 Movie of the Week in America” often, and when I do, I go for lulz, so this doesn’t phase me all too much.
But once Apichatpong Weerasethakul (and other directors of the like) starts filming in 48fps then I’ll start to worry where film in the 21st century is heading.
It’s an interesting topic. If 48fps reduces blur and helps make the picture “more real”, but people have the same negative reaction, saying it’s too much like TV or the weird motion effect modern TVs have, then maybe it points to the appeal of cinema we cant’ quite put our fingers on. Any number of discrete frames per second can never be the same as real motion (see Bergson’s discussion of Zeno’s paradoxes), so maybe it’s exactly this strange abstraction from reality that we’re responding to.