Huffington Post - Tuesday, December 4, 2012

"The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey": How Is 48 Frames Per Second?

By Mike Ryan, Senior Entertainment Writer, The Huffington Post



Yes, there's a new Hobbit movie coming out soon. (The first of three Hobbit movies, actually.) But, most of the buzz -- both good and bad -- stems from the fact that The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey will be shown on a special kind of film with a rate of 48 frames per second. Truth be told, I had no idea what this meant when it was first announced. I've since learned that, to put it simply, viewers long accustomed to seeing 24 frames every second will see twice that many when they watch The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. Over the summer, I spoke to Peter Jackson at Comic-Con and he mentioned that it takes the eye a few minutes to adjust to the frame rate. Having seen the entire film in 48 FPS, I know what he meant -- and my feelings about the format are very mixed. With all that in mind, I'm just going to go ahead and answer every question I had about the format before seeing it for myself.

Q: How does the 48-FPS format differ from most other films?

A: It has twice as many frames per second. This gives it an incredibly clear picture. Which is part of the problem.

Q: Why would a clearer image be a problem?

A: Because, as it turns out, it's possible for an image to look so clear that it no longer looks real. Or so real that it takes you out of the film. As in: that film set looks like ... a film set. Put it this way: the picture is so clear that in one scene I could see Ian McKellen's contact lenses. I won't claim to be a Tolkien expert, but I am pretty sure Acuvue does not exist in Middle Earth.

Q: Did you enjoy watching The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey in 48 FPS?

A: Yes and no, for completely different reasons. I'll admit, it was fascinating to watch a movie in 48 FPS because, honestly, I've never seen anything like it. Ever. So, from a technology standpoint, I enjoyed it quite a bit. But! To the extent that I simply wanted to watch a movie and be immersed in another world, it was distracting.

Q: How was it distracting?

A: Granted, this could be related to my own attention-deficit issues, but I was often taken out of the story because I just wanted to look at things. There's a scene that takes place in Rivendell in which Gandalf (McKellen) and Galadriel (Cate Blanchett) are having an important conversation near a waterfall -- but all I could do was stare at the waterfall. It was so pretty. I mean, I could see each and every droplet of water coming out of this waterfall. All I wanted in the world was to drink from this waterfall. Of course, with all of my attention drawn to this waterfall, I missed most of what Gandalf and Galadriel were talking about.

Q: So everything in the film looks beautiful at 48 FPS? This sounds like a good thing.

A: Well, not so fast. Quite a few things don't look great in 48 FPS. Most of the scenes that take place outdoors look fantastic, but indoors it was difficult to stop being conscious of the fact that we were staring at a movie set. And the scenes that were heavy on CGI yielded mixed results.

Q: Speaking of CGI, how does Gollum look in 48 FPS?

A: Absolutely outstanding. The close-ups of Gollum's face were stunning. But, unfortunately, a scene featuring Radagast the Brown, on a sled powered by rabbits fleeing an approaching Orc army, looks quite terrible. The screen is so clear, it rendered the CGI in the scene (which was shot from a distance) into something that looked a lot like a game of Duck Hunt.

Q: Is Peter Jackson right that, even if it takes some time to get used to watching a film in 48 frames per second, you eventually do grow accustomed to it?

A: Yes and no. First, never once did I not notice that I was watching a film in a different format. Sometimes this is a good thing and sometimes this is a bad thing. But the most troubling aspect was that the first 10 minutes of the film looked sped-up.

Q: Sped-up?

A: Have you ever watched old footage of Babe Ruth running the bases back in 1927? Well, imagine that, only with the clearest picture that you've ever seen. After my screening, I talked to other writers who had noticed the same thing. My understanding is that it took our brains a few minutes to adjust to the new format, and this was the resulting sensation. It's really quite a trip -- because it's not like the voices are sped up. And the voices certainly sync with the video, but, still, everything looks fast. Then, after a few minutes, the speed returned to normal.

Q: Will watching more films in 48 FPS alleviate this issue?

A: This was a topic of conversation after the film. It seems natural to assume that our eyes will learn to adjust more quickly as we see more and more films in 48 FPS, but it's possible that it will always resemble the sensation of having a flashlight shined in your face in an otherwise dark room.

Q: Does 48 FPS have a future as a commercially viable format?

A: Maybe? It really depends on the eye thing.

Q: Should I see The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey in 48 FPS or 24 FPS?

A: Honestly, if you're curious about the technology, see it in 48 FPS -- if only to see something you've never seen before. But if you're just a fan of The Lord of the Rings trilogy and you want to watch The Hobbit without any distractions, see it in 24 FPS.

Q: Oh, how is The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey as a movie?

A: Well, briefly: it's no doubt fun to see these characters again, but the movie isn't quite as good as any of the individual The Lord of the Rings movies. It hits a lot of the same notes as The Fellowship of the Ring (there is a lot of walking from one location to another), and Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins is quite great. But aside from Ian McKellen as Gandalf, the supporting characters are less interesting this time around. Still, as a fantasy adventure film, it's certainly entertaining. Put it this way: it felt about 45 minutes shorter than its nearly-three-hour running time -- and, no, that has nothing to do with 10 minutes of that time spent with an illusion of warp speed.

Thanks for posting this. I am surprised about the 48 FPS, in that it hasn't been touted from what I've seen.

You would think they would promote that aspect heavily just because it's unique.

I saw a brief news story about it on one of those entertainment shows, along with a few clips from the film. It looks to be pretty interesting.

I stopped off at Barnes & Noble this evening and picked up "The Hobbit" in hardcover (which was only $5 more than the paperback). I want to try to finish the whole novel before I see the movie

By the way, there is an interesting foreword. The novel was originally written by J. R. R. Tolkien in September 1937. In 1951, Chapter 5, "Riddles of the Dark," was significantly revised to bring "The Hobbit" more in line with its sequel, "The Lord of the Rings," then in progress. Tolkien made further revisions in 1966. In 1995, text was entered into word processing files, and further corrections of misprints and errors were made. Since then, further editions have been generated and even more corrections have been made.

Was he drunk when he wrote it?

About the frames per second:

When film was first deployed, a balance had to be found between film cost and avoiding "flicker". The optimum speed was actually 30 fps but film was costly so the frame rate was reduced to the barely tolerable 24 fps. When television was introduced, this led to another problem. Being an electrical device, TV was "slave" to the frequency of the electricity being used (60 Hz) and the technology didn't exist for TV screens to refresh the entire screen at that rate (progressive scan), so TV was set up to "interlace" two scans per frame. The first scan displays the even numbered lines and the second scan the odd numbered line - combined making the frame rate 30 fps (29.97 fps for the purists). Another problem emerged when displaying 24 fps film on a 30 fps format TV. The film would either look "jerky" if played back at 24 fps or "sped up" if played pack at 30 fps. It wasn't until the mid 60's that a reliable conversion format was decided upon my the "Motion Picture Engineers Group" (MPEG) and the Telecine converter was deployed. This converter allowed TV broadcasters to show films at a more natural speed while avoiding flicker.

I suspect that eventually, as celluloid film is replaced with data streaming formats, the frame rate will be increased to 60 fps to match the progressive scan rate of modern digital monitor technology.

Very interesting, Sid, thanks. Stuff like this is a bit dry -- yet I enjoy learning the history behind it anyway!

Going to see The Hobbit today in IMAX 3-D and 48 frames per second! Can't wait!

Can't wait to see the sneak preview of the new Star Trek film too!

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is the first of a three-part film adaptation by Peter Jackson of the 1937 novel "The Hobbit" by J. R. R. Tolkien. The other two films of the series are Desolation of Smaug (2013) and There and Back Again (2014).

This trilogy is a prequel to the Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings trilogy: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001), The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002), and The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) [of which, I've only seen the first movie to date].

This movie runs nearly three hours (2 hours, 49 minutes to be exact), though it's a fun movie and the time flies. It seemed to me to be sort of a dark Disney movie -- though not as dark as Jackson's The Lord of the Rings. When the movie was over [which left off on a cliff-hanger], the audience let out a collective "Awww" -- meaning that they wanted more and hadn't grown restless in sitting through a nearly 3-hour movie.

This is definitely a so-called "guys" movie: all action with lots of strange creatures (many of which were grotesque and dangerous). There are some battle scenes, though not really bloody, per se, with certain types of swords beings singled out as being very special. There was no romance at all in the movie; in fact, there was only one female character in the entire movie, and she was only in one brief scene and had only a few lines that did not seem important at all to the plot [though I was under the impression that she might play a more important role later on in the sequels].

There was one scene in a cave with a strange babylike creature named Gollum Bilbo (who is seen in The Lord of the Rings). Gollum wants to eat our hero, the Hobbit named Bilbo Baggins. Gollum was bored as well as being hungry, and invited Baggins to play a riddle game with him. They agreed that if Baggins stumped Gollum, Gollum would should him the way out of the cave; but if Gollum stumped Baggins, Gollum would eat Baggins! While it was a cute scene, the problem was, I couldn't understand the riddles they were asking each other! I could only understand bits of pieces, and later when I got home, I dug out my novel of The Hobbit, found that section in the story, and was only then able to understand and contemplate the riddles. (The riddles in the movie were the same as in the novel, though I think the novel may have had a couple more.)

These are the riddles from the novel:

1. What has roots as nobody sees,
Is taller than trees,
Up, up it goes,
And yet never grows?

2. Thirty white horses on a red hill,
First they champ,
Then they stamp,
Then they stand still.

3. Voiceless it cries,
Wingless flutters,
Toothless bites,
Mouthless mutters.

4. An eye in a blue face
Saw an eye in a green face.
"That eye is like to this eye"
Said the first eye,
"But in low place
Not in high place."

5. It cannot be seen, cannot be felt,
Cannot be heard, cannot be smelt.
It lies behind stars and under hills,
And empty holes it fills.
It comes first and follows after,
Ends life, kills laughter.

6. A box without hinges, key, or lid,
Yet golden treasure inside is hid.

7. Alive without breath,
As cold as death;
Never thirsty, ever drinking,
All in mail never clinking.

8. No-legs lay on one-leg,
Two-legs sat near on three legs,
Four-legs got some.

9. This thing all things devours;
Birds, beasts, trees, flowers;
Gnaws iron, bites steel;
Grinds hard stones to meal;
Slays king, ruins town;,
And beats high mountain down.

Answers:
1. Mountain
2. Chestnuts
3. Wind
4. Daisies
5. Dark
6. Egg
7. Fish
8. Fish on a little table, man sitting at table sitting on a stool, the cat has the bones.
9. Time

48 Frames Per Second

Finally, everyone undoubtedly wants to know about the 48 frames per second (48 fps). Was the image quality better? Did it give me a headache?

First, I need to preface this by pointing out that not all prints are in the 48 fps aspect. Only IMAX 3-D prints are in 48 fps.

In a roundabout way, I confirmed that the screening I saw was in the 48 fps format. The way this came about was that originally I intended to see the movie at AMC Downtown Disney. I thought to call ahead to confirm that they had the 48 fps print, and in fact they told me they didn't; and they directed me to another nearby AMC theater.

When I arrived at that other AMC theater at 5:30 pm, they told me that they have two large screens: one is IMAX and other is something similar called ETX. ETX sound system is actually superior to IMAX's, but only their IMAX theater was screening the movie in 48 fps. The next IMAX showing was at 8:30 pm, so I waited around at the mall for 3 hours to see the IMAX screening.

For these reasons, I am certain that I saw the movie in 48 frames per second.

I could see no discernible difference between 48 frames and all of the other movies I have ever seen at 24 frames per second. It was neither better nor worse, nor did I experience any problems with my eyes or develop a headache. I even took off the 3-D glasses a few times to see if that made a difference, and it didn't. It's possible that 48 fps might have much higher definition in IMAX that is not 3-D, but for my part, 48 fps was just a lot of hoopla that meant nothing in the end.

Otherwise, if you like "guy" movies, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is a great movie that I highly recommend. I enjoyed The Hobbit very much. I cannot wait for the sequels!

SciFiGuy gives The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey a "thumbs-up".

I don't think of The Hobbit as a "guy movie". I loved all the others and I'm sure I'll love this one. One of my favorite old Xbox video games is The Hobbit. I need to drag out the Xbox..........

I didn't mean that gals wouldn't like it. But it has all the elements of being a "guy" movie:
No romance, no female characters (except one very briefly), battle scenes, grotesque creatures, marching off to war.

As compared to a "chick flick", which would be romance story and tear-jerker.

I only ever gave The Lord of The Rings trilogy a chance because my son and his friends loved it. I liked it and got into it.

I am not dying to see The Hobbit either. My son loved this one, too.

Now Silver Linings Playbook????

Stars Brad Cooper and the film is set in South Jersey. The subject family are obsessive Philadelphia Eagle fans!!! What more could I ask for???????

I only saw the first The Lord of the Rings movie. I didn't particularly like it. I didn't bother watching the next two movies of the trilogy.

I didn't particularly like The Lord of The Rings: The Fellowship of The Ring when I first saw it either. In fact, i napped briefly in there I think. I thought Viggo was hot, but Liv Tyler is a highly insipid leading lady. I didn't get the Orlando Bloom with the long white hair appeal either. I figured I was a couple decades too old to appreciate him. I really like Sean Bean, but he has a problem living until the end of films.

By the time the third movie rolled around, my son and his friends were in high school and we watched episodes one and two before we went to the theatre to seeepisode three. It's a great expense of time, but I actually understood the story doing it that way and I enjoyed episode 3. Mostly I enjoyed it because my son and his friends enjoyed it.

My son said I'd like The Hobbit, but I think it is in the queue behind Argo, Silver Linings Playbook, Les Mis and Django Unchained. I like to see major nominees before award season.