The Hobbit

The Hobbit’s vision for the future of cinema looks awful, but it just might work

by planetMitch2 Comments

I just had to post this article from TheVerge – ever since I saw the High Frame Rate (HFR) version of the Hobbit, I've hated the idea of 48fps or higher on the big screen… yet I know many absolutely loved it and want to see that as the future.
If it happens, I'll probably never see another movie in the theater. But that's just me.

It was horrific to me to see all that detail and it totally took me out of the emotion of the movie. But then again, I'm not that fond of 4k either.

The Hobbit’s vision for the future of cinema looks awful, but it just might work

Via The Verge:

As with the past Hobbit films, The Battle of the Five Armies is being released in a limited number of theaters in a format called HFR, or high-frame rate. In this case, it means that the film was shot and is being projected at twice the frame rate that movies have been using for close to a century. It means a sharper, more detailed, and more lifelike image. But it also means a style that moviegoers aren't used to and have largely expressed displeasure with.

Plainly: HFR movies can look a lot like soap operas or home videos, which is strange because both Peter Jackson and James Cameron, the director of Avatar, think they’re the future of cinema. So how can they both be so wrong? It's possible that they're not — they're just not selling it right.

The Hobbit



 

“It's like watching a movie where the flicker and the strobing and the motion blur what we've been used to seeing all of our lives — I mean, all our lives in the cinema — suddenly that just disappears. It goes,” Jackson told The Huffington Post back in 2012. “And you've got this incredibly vivid, realistic-looking image.”

A sharper image and reduced motion blur sound great, but they’re the least convincing arguments for HFR. Even the most casual moviegoer can tell that everything from acting to set design falls apart at different points in The Hobbit’s high-frame rate screenings (you can’t be swept away into a fantasy world when it looks like somebody shot Gandalf with a camcorder). Rather, what the technology is so obviously good for is computer-generated effects.

Read full article at The Verge “The Hobbit’s vision for the future of cinema looks awful, but it just might work”

 

Note: it is our policy to give credit as well as deserved traffic to our news sources – so we don't repost the entire article – sorry, I know you want the juicy bits, but I feel it is only fair that their site get the traffic and besides, you just might make a new friend and find an advertiser that has something you've never seen before

(cover photo credit: snap from The Verge)

planetMitch

chief astronomer at planet5D LLC
Mitch "planetMitch" Aunger is the creator and mastermind behind planet5D.com

He's incredibly happy running planet5D and sharing so much joy of photography and filmmaking with his readers.

Comments

  1. I do agree. However, 48fps might be interesting on movies like Coverfield, for instance, or even Gravity, to give it a real look, “documentary” look. But for everything else, i just think it’s garbage….

  2. I’ve been thinking about this a lot after a client viewed a video and didn’t like the “jitter” in one of the panning shots.  I do everything at 24 out of this hatred for all things 30 and above, but with the proliferation of people watching everything on 120 Hz TVs, they now see a 24P video on their computer as incredibly stuttery.  I then ask myself if I hate HFR merely because of my association with TV, and I’m trying to look at it as objectively as possible.  I want to do a test video: a corporate style video in 24 and one in 30 and see what the clients like better.  Maybe it’s time for me to get over my hatred of HFR!

Leave a Comment