Peter Jackson unsurprised by critics of Hobbit footage

[PurpleHaze420]

Director Peter Jackson claims to be unsurprised by the mixed reaction to footage from his long-anticipated film The Hobbit earlier this week.

"It wasn't particularly surprising because it is something new," Jackson told the Hollywood Reporter. But he added: "Ultimately, it is different in a positive way, especially for 3D, especially for epic films." The 3D film has been shot at a rate of 48 frames per second, compared with the industry standard of 24 frames. The 10 minutes of unfinished footage, shown at the CinemaCon convention in Las Vegas last week, was criticised as uncinematic - with some detractors claiming it "looked like a made-for-TV movie".

SOURCE: http://www.bbc.co.uk...t-arts-17885833

[PurpleHaze420]

The biggest thing i'm annoyed with is the fact that they've made the movie into a two-parter for monetary reason's when the book is tiny. Especially in comparision to the Lord of the Rings. Pfft.

[rajputwarrior]

The biggest thing i'm annoyed with is the fact that they've made the movie into a two-parter for monetary reason's when the book is tiny. Especially in comparision to the Lord of the Rings. Pfft.

eh, it's the best outta the books though. i haven't watched the footage. imma go into the movie with a clear mind.

[G_0]

After what Jackson did for the "Un-filmable" LOTR trilogy, you would think people would be giving him the benefit of the doubt, but I guess not. This is going to end up like The Dark Knight Rises with people overhyping it themselves. No matter how excited I am for this movie as soon as it starts my mind is clear and I can only hope it will give me the same feeling as LOTRs did. It doesn't have to be the same, just needs to be good. I think Jackson will make sure of that as he's a huge fan and has all the right people to make this work around him.

Also, seriously people! Fans are dying for some footage from the movie that we haven't seen. Jackson is nice enough to throw out some unedited footage for the fans and what happens? People complain. IT'S UNEDITED!!!!!!!!

[Stetson]

That's the trouble with playing with framerate. Small changes in framerate and lighting can make something look like a feature film or a daytime soap opera.

[Razorwing]

It looked fine in the trailer. Not sure what the big fuss is about.

[Mathachew Veteran]

It looked fine in the trailer. Not sure what the big fuss is about.

The trailer does not look like it was filmed at a higher rate, though I'd guess there could be several reasons for that.

[HawkMan]

After what Jackson did for the "Un-filmable" LOTR trilogy, you would think people would be giving him the benefit of the doubt, but I guess not. This is going to end up like The Dark Knight Rises with people overhyping it themselves. No matter how excited I am for this movie as soon as it starts my mind is clear and I can only hope it will give me the same feeling as LOTRs did. It doesn't have to be the same, just needs to be good. I think Jackson will make sure of that as he's a huge fan and has all the right people to make this work around him.

Also, seriously people! Fans are dying for some footage from the movie that we haven't seen. Jackson is nice enough to throw out some unedited footage for the fans and what happens? People complain. IT'S UNEDITED!!!!!!!!

You mean mostly disregard the books after the first movie and change the whole story around...

[Jason S. Global Moderator]

Also, seriously people! Fans are dying for some footage from the movie that we haven't seen. Jackson is nice enough to throw out some unedited footage for the fans and what happens? People complain. IT'S UNEDITED!!!!!!!!

you missed the point - people arent complaining about the unedited footage, theyre complaining about the 48fps issue. since humans are so used to 24fps, suddenly 48fps looks terrible. we're not used to it, so it's going to look bad.

[zeta_immersion]

human eye can detect 48 fps? ... really? ...

[jakem1]

You mean mostly disregard the books after the first movie and change the whole story around...

+1

I loved the first film and was amazed by how authentic it was. The others were not nearly as good. I hope he doesn't make the same mistake with The Hobbit :(

I don't really see how Jackson can use the frame-rate of 3D films to support what he's doing with The Hobbit. 3D looks awful.

[User6060]

48fps will be better for keeping the 3D smooth but i'd rather not see my future films in 3D and i severly dislike the amateur digicam look that higher 30/60fps give to video. ive never seen 48fps though :s

[DirtyLarry Veteran]

human eye can detect 48 fps? ... really? ...

Absolutely the human eye can detect the difference between 24 and 48 fps, which is what the article is stating.

Perhaps you need to read this if you feel otherwise.

[giantpotato]

I'm going to withhold my judgement until I see 48fps 3D myself.

I wonder how they're going to handle this on Blu-Ray. Will they just release it at 24fps, or introduce a new profile for higher fps 1080p. 60fps is only a part of the spec for 720p.

[HawkMan]

Absolutely the human eye can detect the difference between 24 and 48 fps, which is what the article is stating.

Perhaps you need to read this if you feel otherwise.

You can't really see it as such, but 48 will seem to be sharper

[HawkMan]

I'm going to withhold my judgement until I see 48fps 3D myself.

I wonder how they're going to handle this on Blu-Ray. Will they just release it at 24fps, or introduce a new profile for higher fps 1080p. 60fps is only a part of the spec for 720p.

and 1080i

[Klownicle]

The 24 to 48 effect is the same thing that was brought about with running films with smooth motion turned on. TV sets when using this feature give the picture a POP or Soap Opera/Real Life effect. I for one do not use these features. Yes they crisp up the image, but we are so used to seeing 24fps/60fps. I believe eventually the change will be made; we just have to get used to it.

No one likes change. I see the benefits with 3D and sharpness. So unless your watching these films in 3d, I suspect a negative effect.

[HawkMan]

Artificially created 50/60 fps from 24 is not the same as real 48. It will however indeed look sharper and pop more. The problem is on ever existing non 48 capable systems, you can't just cut every second frame, then it'll appear jerky or like watching a cartoon. So the alternative is to artificially merge or morph every second frame with the next. Which again will create an artificial "feel" to the picture.

It would have worked better with say 96 fps. As merging 4 frames or sub frames not one would create a much better effect than two.

[ArialBlue]

Are people really complaining that a movie will have higher FPS rate than usual, horribly bad, 24?

Thats is like complaining that your FPS game is running at 60 FPS instead of 30.

[Razorwing]

The trailer does not look like it was filmed at a higher rate, though I'd guess there could be several reasons for that.

Well the trailer footage and the final footage should be the same for fps. It doesn't make sense to have different fps for the trailer itself. If it is filmed at 48fps, everything is at 48fps.

[Alberto_R2]

When I go to the movies to watch something in 3D, say Hugo, I loved how the 3D was done but got eye strained with the judder from panning shots and fast scenes. Also even with Avatar I got "tired" of the 3D effect later on in the movie. So what Mr. Jackson has done is solve this issue when seeing something in 3D and making it smoother and easier on the eyes. I'm an observer of this problem since Avatar came up (because of the eye strain) and have high hopes for the Hobbit to solving this issue and really feeling I'm in the Shire. People said it looked too perfect and somewhat fake (Although the AintitcoolNews guy said it wasn't a negative effect on him), but they failed to aknowledge that it was unfinished scenes (some with green screens visible).

Personally I like the smoother effect on my TV, looks more lifelike and vivid and when I watch something else without the effect it just looks dated and can tell the difference more of the slower framerate.

[giantpotato]

Well the trailer footage and the final footage should be the same for fps. It doesn't make sense to have different fps for the trailer itself. If it is filmed at 48fps, everything is at 48fps.

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere the trailers will all be 24fps, with half the frames missing. Just because it's filmed at 48fps, doesn't mean it will be displayed at that frame rate. I even read some theaters are planning to play the film at 24fps just to avoid complaints. Other theaters are probably incapable of displaying 48fps.

[Buio]

Finally getting 48 or even 60 fps movies and people are complaining? I'd take a 60 fps movie without jerky framerate any day before a 3D movie.

[Zain Adeel]

the movie will look smoother ? less cutting frames in fast moving action.

Also whats a challenge is for the CGI team. As more framerates mean more detail and more frames to render an effect and as they will look smoother (sharper) they would have to do a better job at it.

[firey]

Are people really complaining that a movie will have higher FPS rate than usual, horribly bad, 24?

Thats is like complaining that your FPS game is running at 60 FPS instead of 30.

This is what I would of thoughts, however movies don't seem to lag even at 24FPS. What's the difference between a game running at 60fps and a movie at 60fps? Most games where the fps gets down to 24 or less it can seem very jittery, the higher FPS (before tearing occurs) the better. Why isn't it like that for a movie?