Some early critiques of Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey have bashed the director’s choice to film in 48 FPS (frames per second), and today he offered his thoughts on the matter. To put this controversy into perspective if you have a HDTV with some sort of auto-motion plus feature turn it on to see what a higher frame rate does to the picture. I’ll be honest, the effect is jarring if you’re not used to it, and I don’t employ it on my screen at home, but I have full faith in the genius of Jackson, so I’m sure the effect isn’t as shitty as some of these snob nosed critics are making it out to be.
In regards to The Hobbit though it was shot using a camera capable of shooting 48 FPS, as well as the traditional 24 FPS, so I’m assuming that it’s built for this viewing mode. It seems though that not everyone is liking the ultra realistic presentation this effect gives a movie like The Hobbit, and they’re bashing the film for it regardless if the movie is good or not.
Jackson has taken umbrage with this outcry of foul play, and responded to the haters today while at the NY presser to promote The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. He basically said that old people are the only ones bitching about it, and that younger folks will love it. Mind you not every theater will even have to ability to run this film in 48 FPS, so it’s not like you’re screwed if you don’t like new technology. In fact, the 2D versions of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey will only be in 24 FPS, so unless you’re a 3D junky like me you don’t even have to worry about Jackson’s evil 48 FPS tricks.
Personally, I hope my IMAX 3D screening employs the new technology, so I can see what all of the fuss is about. If it doesn’t I’ll be sure to screen it in Real 3D as well, because my theater of choice is indeed on the list of theaters that have 48 FPS capabilities. I really think it’s either going to be one helluva visual ride, or so new and real looking that the movie magic employed will seem so vivid that it will appear fake. Trust me, that sentence does make sense if you’ve ever seen a show running at a high frame rate.
Oh well, only time will tell now. For Jackson’s thoughts on the matter head on down after the break. You’ve been thinking people are becoming bigger haters than ever…
Courtesy of SuperheroHype
[#ff entbuddha] “Making you a better geek, one post at a time!”
“I’m fascinated by reactions. I’m tending to see that anyone under the age of 20 or so doesn’t really care and thinks it looks cool, not that they understand it but they often just say that 3D looks really cool. I think 3D at 24 frames is interesting, but it’s the 48 that actually allows 3D to almost achieve the potential that it can achieve because it’s less eye strain and you have a sharper picture which creates more of the 3-dimensional world.”
“Warner Bros. were very supportive. They just wanted us to prove that the 24 frame version would look normal, which it does, but once they were happy with that, on first day, when we had to press that button that said ’48 frames’ even though on that first day we started shooting at 48 FPS, you could probably say there wasn’t a single cinema in the world that would project the moviein that format. It was a big leap of faith.”
“The big thing to realize is that it’s not an attempt to change the film industry. It’s another choice. The projectors that can run at 48 frames can run at 24 frames – it doesn’t have to be one thing or another. You can shoot a movie at 24 frames and have sequences at 48 or 60 frames within the body of the film. You can still do all the shutter-angle and strobing effects. It doesn’t necessarily change how films are going to be made. It’s just another choice that filmmakers have got and for me, it gives that sense of reality that I love in cinema.”
Via [#ff comicbook_movie] [ratings]