WorstPreviews.com Logo Join the community [Login / Register]
Follow WorstPreviews.com on Twitter
What\ News Coming Soon In Theaters On DVD Trailer,Posters,Pictures,Wallpapers, Screensavers PeliBlog.com Trivia/Quizzes
News/Headlines
Trailer for "Midnight Special" Sci-Fi Film, with Michael Shannon and Joel Edgerton
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for "Central Intelligence" Comedy, with Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for Melissa McCarthy's "The Boss" Comedy
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for Juan Antonio Bayona's "A Monster Calls"
Nov 23rd, 2015
First Look at "Central Intelligence" Comedy, with Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for "Zoolander 2" Arrives Online
Nov 19th, 2015
Official Trailer for "Now You See Me" Sequel
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for Chris Hemsworth's "The Huntsman: Winter's War"
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for Keanu Reeves' "Exposed" Thriller
Nov 19th, 2015
First Look at Chris Pine on "Wonder Woman" Set
Nov 16th, 2015
Ridley Scott Reveals Another Title for "Prometheus" Sequel
Nov 16th, 2015
Gerard Butler is a God in "Gods of Egypt" Posters
Nov 16th, 2015
First Look at Liam Neeson in Martin Scorsese's "Silence"
Nov 16th, 2015
New Trailer for "The Divergent Series: Allegiant"
Nov 16th, 2015
Trailer for "Moonwalkers" Comedy, with Ron Perlman and Rupert Grint
Nov 16th, 2015
Trailer for Charlie Kaufman's "Anomalisa" Stop-Motion Film
Nov 3rd, 2015
Poster for "Warcraft" Arrives Online, Trailer Coming on Friday
Nov 3rd, 2015
There's a Good Reason Why Luke Skywalker Isn't on "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Poster
Nov 2nd, 2015
First Trailer for Sacha Baron Cohen's "The Brothers Grimsby" Comedy
Nov 2nd, 2015
"Spectre" Breaks Box Office Records Overseas
Nov 2nd, 2015
Final Trailer for Ron Howard's "In the Heart of the Sea," with Chris Hemsworth
Nov 2nd, 2015
New Photos From "Warcraft" Video Game Movie
Nov 2nd, 2015
Lots of New Photos From "Suicide Squad"
Oct 30th, 2015
Trailer for "Dirty Grandpa" Comedy, with Robert De Niro and Zac Efron
Oct 30th, 2015
Sandra Bullock to Star in Female Version of "Ocean's Eleven"
Oct 30th, 2015
Trailer for Jared Hess' "Don Verdean" Comedy, with Sam Rockwell
Oct 30th, 2015
"Indiana Jones" Producer Says Harrison Ford Will Not Be Recast
Oct 28th, 2015
Trailer for Adam Sandler's "The Ridiculous 6" Comedy
Oct 28th, 2015
"The Walking Dead" Fan Kills Friend Who Turned Into a Zombie
Oct 28th, 2015
Another "Monopoly" Movie in the Works
Oct 28th, 2015
"Jumanji" Remake Hires "Con Air" Writer
Oct 26th, 2015
Disney's "Tower of Terror" Park Ride Movie Moving Forward
Oct 26th, 2015
Johnny Depp and Edgar Wright Team for "Fortunately, the Milk"
Oct 26th, 2015
Previous News Stories Next News Stories

Higher Frame Rate Version of "The Hobbit" Will Get Limited Release

Posted: August 8th, 2012 by WorstPreviews.com Staff
Higher Frame Rate Version of "The Hobbit" Will Get Limited ReleaseSubmit Comment
Back in April, Peter Jackson unveiled a ten-minute sneak peek at "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey," showing the footage in 48fps (frames per second). Movies are normally presented in 24fps, despite the fact that our eyes can see at a much higher frame rate.

The idea was to provide a much clearer image, which worked, but viewers complained that the image was so clear that it looked like a soap opera. Jackson fired back stating that audiences will eventually become more comfortable with the higher frame rate and compared it to how audiences weren't initially willing to switch from black-and-white movies to color.

Warner Bros took the complaints very seriously and is now worried that this could hurt the film's box office. As a result "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" will be released in 24fps, but will also be offered in 48fps in select locations.

This will be part of Warners' test to see if audiences will accept the higher frame rate. If it gets positive reviews, the 48fps version of "The Hobbit" sequel may get a wider release.

Source: Variety


Bookmark and Share
You must be registered to post comments. Login or Register.
Displaying 24 comment(s) Profanity: Turn On
Taco writes:
on August 8th, 2012 at 7:40:36 AM

Yeah this is news Alex, caught this on Ign yesterday afternoon, still watching 48 fps is worse than watching a Mexican soap opera!
Serpico1988 writes:
on August 8th, 2012 at 8:18:46 AM

is anybody else put off by the whole idea of The Hobbit by this , or is it just me?

this is bullsh*t, lol isn't this like, a kick in jackson's nuts, he must be thinking.. fk me for throwing away all that money into a clearer picture quality which isn't well recieved.. Why , why do they do this? just shoot the damn film like you shot LOTR :S
minkowski writes:
on August 8th, 2012 at 8:45:04 AM

I like how cinematic progress has to suffer because people are too f*cking close-minded and stupid to adapt to new technology, but at the same time, they can figure out how to access Facebook from their Android phone while driving, applying makeup, and eating an Egg McMuffin.
Avirex writes:
on August 8th, 2012 at 8:51:26 AM

Jackson clearly has a gut but no backbone. He took it like a bitch at Comic-Con by only showing a 24fps preview or whatever and now nearly the entire release will be sans 48fps.
minkowski writes:
on August 8th, 2012 at 8:58:57 AM

^^It's his fault. Stupid. Why is he trying to push 48fps via films that cost as much as these?? Do it on smaller films so the ROI isn't an issue. He knows people are going to have some issues adapting, so why try to push the new frame rate through mission critical movies? Cameron can get away with that, but he can't. Just. Stupid.
boogiel writes:
on August 8th, 2012 at 9:06:37 AM

I don't care much about the frickin' frame. Just bring us a new trailer already.
Serpico1988 writes:
on August 8th, 2012 at 9:06:40 AM

@mink

fair point, filmmaking must utilize these visual effect tools. I jus believe a project like The hobbit , or any other for that matter must concentrate more on telling the story well, unlike Avatar, which in my view was a major failure -spectacular sure, but it relied too heavily on vfx as a selling point; due to which the actual story suffered and movie experience was ruined for me. Then again, a blatant ripoff of Pocahontas shouldn't have been greenlit in the first place, so f*** cameron.

i have high hopes for The Hobbit, surely it will be a beautiful film, and hopefully will Not be like watching a soap opera :P
Serpico1988 writes:
on August 8th, 2012 at 9:07:43 AM

"Do it on smaller films so the ROI isn't an issue."

absolutely.
velocityknown writes:
on August 8th, 2012 at 9:19:27 AM

This isn't new technology, it's an option that's been available for a really really long time. People don't shoot on 24fps because they like the number and it's the only option. They do it because it's the BEST option.

Jackson just felt like he had to participate in the game of technological one-upmanship and said, "Hey why don't I just click this button and raise the frame rate? That'll be cool, right?"

I don't care about Jackson's ability to do something anyone can do on a camera. I care about his ability to capably tell this story. And, he's already faltering on that as well by stretching this into three movies.
Taco writes:
on August 8th, 2012 at 9:19:35 AM

While watching a 3D movie at 24fps it's a bit jarring because of how 3D works. 24fps isn't enough for 3D to be smooth. It's when 2D is shown at more than 24fps, like 30 or 48, it eliminates motion blur which your eyes do see and when it's gone the brain recognizes unnatural motion and is taken out of the film because it identifies the technology of the image.
Taco writes:
on August 8th, 2012 at 9:21:05 AM

^^^ Your thoughts Mink?
minkowski writes:
on August 8th, 2012 at 9:42:29 AM

^^I agree with what you said, Taco, although I can't comment on the 3D/24fps because I've never, ever seen a film in 3D. Ever. Not even a 1950s or a 1980s stereoscopic film.

Certainly, the more frames per second the less the motion blur, because there's more information per second and there's less exposure per frame. The image is sharper overall and the motion more clear, less shaky.

Trumbull tried this back in the 70s I think at 60fps with Showscan. Never saw it, and I don't think any one else did either. Company died because the cost of the film killed them. Not an issue now with EPIC RED cameras that can shoot up to 120 fps in 5k (WOW!).

Hear Avatar will use 60fps instead of 48 to afford the 3D a much higher clarity with far less motion blur, for the benefit of both the CGI and the 3D format.




You can see 24fps:

http://tinyurl.com/9f9rk6r

versus 50fps:

http://tinyurl.com/cqusj7n

The 50fps IS a little jarring, at least to me, but I recognize that it's nothing more than the way I'm accustomed to perceiving video, so I assume, after a while, I'd get used to it.



"People don't shoot on 24fps because they like the number and it's the only option. They do it because it's the BEST option"

No, they did it because it's standard, and it's standard because for the longest time, 24fps was essentially the lowest framerate that provided a relatively smooth picture at an affordable cost. People got accustomed to 24fps and it naturally stuck.
Stapes writes:
on August 8th, 2012 at 9:48:48 AM

First off, f*ck you, Warner Bros.

Second, 48fps is jarring at first and does seem kind of soap operaish or like you're watching a drama on the BBC, however your eyes quickly become accustomed to it and in the end I think it only helps to improve human visual perception as all motion blur is is your brain's inability to quickly predict what the next series of images is going to look like, hence something that is moving quickly becomes blurred. After watching a few movies at the higher frame rate though, your brain is being taught slowly what subsequent frames of footage are likely going to look like and the brain gets better at prediction of visual perception. You'll soon find yourself "seeing" things in your mind's eye or your dreams at the higher frame rate, crazy as that might sound.

The real reason hollywood is scared of 48fps is because once your brain becomes accustomed to it and better at next-image-prediction, and it does so quickly the younger and less fixed your brain is, the more like sh*t everything else looks. This means a big budget movie like The Hobbit shown exclusively in 48fps is going to turn off a lot of older viewers and stands to make less money for the studio. That goes without saying as Warner Bros. is in the business to make money and not art, so on second thought I can't say I blame them for limiting the release of a 48fps version. I can honestly say that I have no desire to see this movie in theaters if I can't find it in 48fps near by.
minkowski writes:
on August 8th, 2012 at 9:49:40 AM

Nice PDF:

http://www.christiedigital.com/supportdocs/anonymous/christie-high-frame-rate-technology-overview.pdf

Covers a lot of facts regarding HFR as being used by Jackson, Cameron, et al.
Taco writes:
on August 8th, 2012 at 9:52:28 AM

People got accustomed to 24fps and it naturally stuck.

-Also projectors back in the early 1900's could only playback at 24fps. 24 was the fastest speed for theaters for a long time.
minkowski writes:
on August 8th, 2012 at 9:58:22 AM

^^That's very true, and if I remember correctly, there was an issue with syncing audio to film that became impossible, or prohibitively expensive, at higher frame rates.
cress writes:
on August 8th, 2012 at 10:33:00 AM

Mink, interested to hear why you've never checked out a 3d film. Not curious at all?
minkowski writes:
on August 8th, 2012 at 11:25:04 AM

^^Not really. I've heard they give people HUGE headaches and the 3D isn't often done very well, like Journey to the Center of the Earth, and most of the films that use 3D aren't good, like Ice Age. Seems like 3D is just another reason to get lazy on the font end.

Believe it or not, I'd rather watch something like TDKR in 2D than Avengers in 3D. But that's just me.
JakeVermont writes:
on August 8th, 2012 at 3:13:54 PM

@Mink:
I'm not a friend of 3D movies either first I hate the glasses they take away a lot of contrast and colour.
Second I dont know how other people perceive this but I get headaches from badly converted 3D movies, thats not the case with movies filmed in 3D, maybe thats because the brain trys to solve impossible equations with no solution, I mean things from the background looking as if they were on the foreground (conversion)

BUT honestly the Pixar movies have awesome 3D, compared to Ice Age with seemed years behind. I went to see BRAVE last week and they were showing a trailer for THE HOBBIT and that was the BEST LiveAction 3D I've ever seen. And it wasnt even at 48 fps.

I'd really like to watch it at 48 fps though, I dont like the soap opera effect at all but if it helps with the 3D I'm all up for it.

But 2D movies with more than 24fps no thanks. I just need the movie effect. And there is nothing bad about it.
JakeVermont writes:
on August 8th, 2012 at 3:26:25 PM

@Mink:

"The 50fps IS a little jarring, at least to me, but I recognize that it's nothing more than the way I'm accustomed to perceiving video, so I assume, after a while, I'd get used to it."

would you like to have more than 24fps for 2D movies?
I just think that would feel to much like reality and when I go to the movies thats the very thing I want to leave outside, reality!

As for 3D, I think it helpes to drag you into the movie more when done right. I'd really like to know what 3D looks like at higher fps.
PLASTIC MAN writes:
on August 8th, 2012 at 4:50:46 PM

Did you here? Mink is a child molester. He threatened to rape my four year old daughter...and then everyone (Ranger and Trailer Trash) had a good laugh at my child's expense.

If you give this guy any credence, then I think you should strongly reconsider.

Mink said some really aweful things, and this site did nothing to stop him. For this reason, I will continue to be the vehicle for justice here.

Raping children is not funny, Minkowski. You should be ashamed of yourself. And until I get an apology, then you can expect to see more of this type of posting.
Stapes writes:
on August 8th, 2012 at 5:15:39 PM

@plastic man
if you dont like what says, ignore him. I would hate to live in a world where internet posts were censored, wouldnt be able to laugh at averix's hilarious posts and that would just suck. Besides 90% of posters on here are males between the ages of 28 and 35 and thats just what our demographic does, get over it.
Ranger writes:
on August 8th, 2012 at 7:40:57 PM

@PlasticDouche - mink only talked about raping your daughter. I actually did. Did you ever find her in that dumpster? What really turned me on is when she kept calling me Daddy!
minkowski writes:
on August 8th, 2012 at 8:32:56 PM

Rape is such a horrible word.

I prefer the phrase 'pediatric vaginal invasion'.

There's a Good Reason Why Luke Skywalker Isn't on "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Poster

"The Walking Dead" Fan Kills Friend Who Turned Into a Zombie

Ridley Scott Reveals Another Title for "Prometheus" Sequel

"Indiana Jones" Producer Says Harrison Ford Will Not Be Recast

Johnny Depp and Edgar Wright Team for "Fortunately, the Milk"

"Spectre" Breaks Box Office Records Overseas

"Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Demolishes Pre-Sale Records

Paul Bettany Responds to Jason Statham's "Avengers" Insult

Sandra Bullock to Star in Female Version of "Ocean's Eleven"

Daniel Craig Would Rather Commit Suicide Than Return as James Bond
Lace Wedding Dresses from ViViDress UK online shop, buy with confidence and cheap price.
WorstPreviews.com hosted by pair Networks WorstPreviews.com
Hosted by pair Networks
News Feeds | Box Office | Movie Reviews | Buzz: Top 100 | Popularity: Top 100
Poster Store | About Us | Advertising | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Web Tools | Site Map
Copyright © 2009 WorstPreviews.com. All rights reserved