Peter Jackson’s
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, which premieres worldwide next week on Friday, Dec. 14, was filmed with special
RED EPIC cameras capable of recording at an incredible 5,120 by 2,700 pixels, using a motion standard known as High Frame Rate, or HFR, referring to a frame rate greater than 24 FPS — or in this case, exactly double it. If you’re a Jackson wonk or just a film-tech connoisseur, you already know the movie will be displayed in select theaters at 48 FPS.
For all the technical ballyhoo, it’s a decision that’s elicited both praise and scorn. Critics claim HFR makes films look interpolated, like a soap
opera (if you’ve ever watched a soap opera and wondered why it looks nothing like film, it’s because of the interlaced format, 60i, which conveys the illusion of running at a higher frame rate than 30 FPS).
On the other hand, film critic Roger Ebert described seeing a movie at 48 FPS as “of startling clarity.” Writing about Maxivision 48, inventor Dean Goodhill’s 1999 standard for 48 FPS, 35mm film, Ebert
said it “achieves a picture quality better than anything you’ve seen: Four times as good, in fact.”
Peter Jackson
took to Facebook a few weeks ago to defend his decision to film and display his
The Hobbit trilogy at 48 FPS.
Now, in the digital age, there’s no reason whatsoever to stick to 24 fps. We didn’t get it perfect in 1927. Science tells us that the human eye stops seeing individual pictures at about 55 fps. Therefore, shooting at 48 fps gives you much more of an illusion of real life. The reduced motion blur on each frame increases sharpness and gives the movie the look of having been shot in 65mm or IMAX. One of the biggest advantages is the fact that your eye is seeing twice the number of images each second, giving the movie a wonderful immersive quality. It makes the 3D experience much more gentle and hugely reduces eyestrain. Much of what makes 3D viewing uncomfortable for some people is the fact that each eye is processing a lot of strobing, blur and flicker. This all but disappears in HFR 3D.
But so far, the response in early reviews of the film, which premiered in
New Zealand on Nov. 28, has been less than flattering.
The Hollywood Reporter‘s Todd McCarthy
leans negative, writing “The results are interesting and will be much-debated, but an initial comparison of the two formats [the 24 FPS vs. 48 FPS versions] weighs against the experiment.” For
Variety,
Peter Debruge says “[Everything] takes on an overblown, artificial quality in which the phoniness of the sets and costumes becomes obvious, while well-lit areas bleed into their surroundings, like watching a high-end homemovie.” And Movieline’s Jen Yamato
is witheringly critical, writing “It felt like watching daytime soaps in HD, terrible BBC broadcasts, or Faerie Tale Theater circa 1985, only in amazingly sharp clarity and with hobbits.”
But so far, the response in early reviews of the film, which premiered in
New Zealand on Nov. 28, has been less than flattering.
The Hollywood Reporter‘s Todd McCarthy
leans negative, writing “The results are interesting and will be much-debated, but an initial comparison of the two formats [the 24 FPS vs. 48 FPS versions] weighs against the experiment.” For
Variety,
Peter Debruge says “[Everything] takes on an overblown, artificial quality in which the phoniness of the sets and costumes becomes obvious, while well-lit areas bleed into their surroundings, like watching a high-end homemovie.” And Movieline’s Jen Yamato
is witheringly critical, writing “It felt like watching daytime soaps in HD, terrible BBC broadcasts, or Faerie Tale Theater circa 1985, only in amazingly sharp clarity and with hobbits.”
