The Hobbit Trilogy

[Nick R]

Bret from Flight of the Conchords has been cast in it.

FIGWIT LIVES!

[Steve McQueef]

He clearly slimmed down precisely when he meant to.

When he could afford decent cocaine?

[roskelld]

This is the same Jackson that rewrote Legolas and Gimli from legendary demi-god heroes in the Nordic tradition to comedy sidekicks. That said, and it's been many years since I read The Hobbit, but it is a children's book, isn't it? If anything I think it'll suit Jackson better than LOTR.

While it is a children's book, it's still pretty dark and rich; certainly not representative of any other typical kids novel.

However yea, there's much less of a leap to convert characters into comedy sidekicks.

[lordcookie]

The Hobbit to be shot at 48fps.

There has been a lot of talk about shooting at higher speeds since James Cameron has been championing the move (Avatar 2 will certainly be shot at a higher speed, perhaps as much as 60fps) but this is the first film that will demonstrate to the public whether or not the move is justified. Of course there is still no guarantee that the film will be distributed at 48fps, the studio may feel the rendering costs are too high (estimates are the rendering costs will be anywhere from double to 10% higher than they are currently) and you also have the stumbling block of theatres having to do upgrades (although I think most will only be software changes rather than buying hardware).

[mushashi]

If Cameron is going to push it through for the sequel to the biggest film of all time, the cinema chains won't be a problem.

So what I read about Cameron saying he had the backing of both Lucas and Jackson was true, nice

That's the beauty of them using digital cameras, shooting at higher fps is as simple as flicking a switch. The only real PITA is the extra rendering time for the CGI.

[JohnC]

A bit OT, but how are digital movies distributed anyway? Delivered on a HD or similar digital media? Downloaded somehow? Digital cinemas seem to have the capability to show live stuff digitally, so I guess downloading is possible.

[lordcookie]

A bit OT, but how are digital movies distributed anyway? Delivered on a HD or similar digital media? Downloaded somehow? Digital cinemas seem to have the capability to show live stuff digitally, so I guess downloading is possible.

This link might help, it isn't particularly detailed but gives you an idea - basically it seems to be pretty flexible.

http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/digital-cinema4.htm

[TehStu]

Won't films stop looking "filmy" if you shoot at more than 24fps? I remember when Red Dwarf changed from 50fps to 24(?) in the latter seasons and it lost it's cheap charm. We'd have the opposite here, surely?

[Festoon]

Just hope Martin Freeman doesn't play "grumpy", like he usually does.

[Nick R]

Won't films stop looking "filmy" if you shoot at more than 24fps? I remember when Red Dwarf changed from 50fps to 24(?) in the latter seasons and it lost it's cheap charm. We'd have the opposite here, surely?

For the 48fps 3D version: From all I've heard, the improvements in the 3D effect's quality would outweigh any concerns about it looking "too smooth" compared to normal film.

For the 48fps 2D version: Would such a version ever be needed - would any cinema project it like that, and would it be the preferred way of presenting it on Blu-Ray? I dunno! If so, is 48fps high-res digital film similar enough to 50fps interlaced videotape that watching The Hobbit in this way will make us think of TV sitcoms? I dunno!

For the 24fps 2D version: If you made one by simply discarding every other frame of 48fps footage, you'd end up with something that'd be played back at 24fps, but would have the lower levels of motion blur appropriate for a 48fps film. So would that discrepancy make it look noticably different from normal film? I dunno! So I had a quick Google and found this post by some guy with ASC after his name, who says you could compensate by artificially adding motion blur:

There will have to be a 24 fps 2D version made -- it shouldn't be hard, if you simply dropped every other frame from the 48 fps footage, it would look like 24 fps photography shot with a 90 degree shutter instead of a 180 degree shutter, and with a little bit of motion blur added in post, it would probably end up looking like most 24 fps movies.

I think 48 fps for a 3D movie kinda makes sense, even though I'm not a fan of 48 fps for 2D movies... the strobing in action scenes in 3D looks more distracting that it does in 2D, so 48 fps may help with that, and I like I said, the 2D version converted to 24 fps should look like traditional film more or less, in theory.

Which sounds like a "fear not!" to me!

[makkuwata]

Just hope Martin Freeman doesn't play "grumpy", like he usually does.

I've not seen him in much, but I don't rate him very highly, and that nails my impression of him perfectly.

Unfortunately "grumpy" is the character's default state through the majority of the book...

[mushashi]

Cameron explains the benefits of 48fps in this article, if anybody knows what they are doing when it comes to pushing back the technical frontier, it is this man:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movies/2011/03/james-cameron-champions-faster-film-projection-rates.html

He used a number of cinematic techniques in the footage to illuminate what he called the gravity of the gap between, say, 24 and 48 frames. One scene set at a dinner table included a number of panning shots, so the crowd could see how a 24 fps shot caused the image to "strobe" -- which is when an image looks blurry, almost as if it is appearing in slow motion, seeming out of sync.

While even the filmmaker admitted that he was only able to notice a slight difference between a 48 fps and 60 fps, the audience audibly reacted to the increase in quality between 24 fps and 48 fps. The footage shown at 48 fps was far clearer and also had a much more realistic tone to it. That might be an issue for some filmmakers, Cameron acknowledged.

[TehStu]

That's really interesting, thanks guys. I've never seem a 3D film (young kids, don't get to the cinema much any more) so was unawares of the strobing effect.

[Comrade]

That's really interesting, thanks guys. I've never seem a 3D film (young kids, don't get to the cinema much any more) so was unawares of the strobing effect.

Strobing is in 2D as well.

[lordcookie]

Jackson talking about the increased frame rate:

Film purists will criticize the lack of blur and strobing artifacts, but all of our crew–many of whom are film purists–are now converts. You get used to this new look very quickly and it becomes a much more lifelike and comfortable viewing experience. It’s similar to the moment when vinyl records were supplanted by digital CDs. There’s no doubt in my mind that we’re heading towards movies being shot and projected at higher frame rates. Warner Bros. have been very supportive, and allowed us to start shooting THE HOBBIT at 48 fps, despite there never having been a wide release feature film filmed at this higher frame rate. We are hopeful that there will be enough theaters capable of projecting 48 fps by the time The Hobbit comes out where we can seriously explore that possibility with Warner Bros. However, while it’s predicted that there may be over 10,000 screens capable of projecting THE HOBBIT at 48 fps by our release date in Dec, 2012, we don’t yet know what the reality will be. It is a situation we will all be monitoring carefully. I see it as a way of future-proofing THE HOBBIT. Take it from me–if we do release in 48 fps, those are the cinemas you should watch the movie in. It will look terrific!

[Rudi von Starnberg]

Kerraig is going to have a fucking conniption.

[Jonathan_Kerr]

Does this 48 fps similar to that 'super-smoothing' effect (dunno what it's really called) that you see on some fancy hi-end TV's?

I'm not a fan of it, the smoothness just throws me off a bit.

[makkuwata]

I understand what people mean by that, but it goes back to the analogy Jackson is making - vinyl to CDs. 'This is too perfect rabble rabble rabble'.

Everyone growing up with it is going to be in no doubt it's superior. I don't want to be a Luddite .

[Matt G]

Does this 48 fps similar to that 'super-smoothing' effect (dunno what it's really called) that you see on some fancy hi-end TV's?

Intelligent Frame Creation and the like? Those are completely different, not only in that they create ~100 fps or higher, the frames they create are not from the original source, they are a combination of the actual frames before and after the 'imagninary' frame that is being created. A 48 fps camera just takes 48 actual pictures a second instead of 24, each one is a distinct real image. Just like a game creates 60 distinct rendered frames per second, each one being a static representation of the game world at that point in time.

[rundll]

From a photographic point of view, I don't like the implication that motion blur is an 'artifact'. I've always enjoyed the 24fps look, it's very distinct from 30fps, which I've always associated with TV. I can appreciate that it would make the 3D version work better, but I'm still not sold on the current implementation of 3D cinema anyway.

It's funny. Just as the masses get access to high quality HD dSLR shooting at 24fps, the elite film makers suddenly decide it's not good enough and go where only larger sums of money can take you.

[Vemsie]

Here's an article on the stuff Cameron showed recently.

http://www.slashfilm.com/cameron/

Douglas Trumbull wanted to do this a long way back, but he had to wait until now:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/2001-vfx-wizard-douglas-trumbull-176813

[Jonathan_Kerr]

Intelligent Frame Creation and the like? Those are completely different, not only in that they create ~100 fps or higher, the frames they create are not from the original source, they are a combination of the actual frames before and after the 'imagninary' frame that is being created. A 48 fps camera just takes 48 actual pictures a second instead of 24, each one is a distinct real image. Just like a game creates 60 distinct rendered frames per second, each one being a static representation of the game world at that point in time.

Great. Thanks for clearing that up. (+1) I've seen some films on TV with the "intelligent" Frame Creation and it drives me nuts. I guess I just prefer the 24fps look when it comes to films.

[Vemsie]

It's funny. Just as the masses get access to high quality HD dSLR shooting at 24fps, the elite film makers suddenly decide it's not good enough and go where only larger sums of money can take you.

Well, not suddenly. If you look at the article I posted, Trumbull was experimenting with this back in the eighties but the tech wasn't really there to pull it off in a way that wasn't deemed too expensive. According to Cameron, and the man knows his tech like few others, it can now be done without theatres having to invest in super expensive technology.

[mushashi]

Great. Thanks for clearing that up. (+1) I've seen some films on TV with the "intelligent" Frame Creation and it drives me nuts. I guess I just prefer the 24fps look when it comes to films.

You do know PAL TV (ie, the stuff you generally watch in Europe) runs at a whole 25fps, 4% faster than film, yet looks a whole lot different, the fps thing isn't the primary reason films look the way they do

And despite NTSC (PAL's crapier forefather) running at 30fps, films shown over there actually only have the original 24 frames of actual distinct content per second.

[Steve McQueef]

I just want to know how this will affect home HD releases, the majority of which, are typically 24fps.

[Rudi von Starnberg]

Well, HDTVs are perfectly capable of displaying higher framerates so it'll be entirely down to the individual release.

[lordcookie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfesknLk5uI&feature=player_embedded

[Pete]

Saw that earlier. Properly exciting - remains me of the fantastic DVD extras of LOTR. Is it going to be in 3D?

Had my first experience of 3D yesterday(!), my local picture house got a projector in for cave of forgotten dreams. Not a fan of the 3D at all.

[lordcookie]

Yes it will be in 3D.

[Headache]

Shit, that makes me want the film right now.