Click to Skip Ad
Closing in...

Immersed in Movies: Peter Jackson Talks 'The Hobbit' and Controversial 48 fps

by Bill Desowitz
December 5, 2012 2:43 PM
  • |

Peter Jackson's return to Middle-earth with "The Hobbit" at the higher frame rate of 48 is certainly a bold experiment. It's new; it's different; it's smoother; it's more heightened. But there's no question that HFR 3-D is already causing an aesthetic divide. For some, it's jarring; for others, it's jaw-dropping. For me, it was an unexpected delight. I'm as passionate about film as anyone, but from the moment we first entered Bilbo's Hobbit Hole, I surrendered to the clarity and opulence of the journey. It was like opening a window into a familiar world yet truly seeing it for the first time.

Yes, it was strange at first, as though I was on the set with the characters (and the motion was sometimes awkward in the way it was sped up or slowed down), but the intimacy greatly enhanced the experience. There was no displeasing soap opera-like video look: Andrew Lesnie's lighting and subsequent color grading were remarkably diverse, ranging from the naturalistic to the impressionistic and much of it breathtaking.

"Is it better or worse? I didn't quite know myself at first," Jackson admits. "It's different -- it's more real. Is that a good thing? It's like saying your favorite color is blue or red and arguing in favor of that color. Then as we started shooting it and we watched dailies for hours on end, there's a length of time that you relax into it. I don't even think about it now.

"The real question is: Do we basically sit back and continue to watch audiences dwindle and surrender to kids watching movies on iPads or do we see what we can do with the technology today to enhance the cinema going experience? To me, it's a very fundamental decision, whether it's high frame rate or 3-D (which is more immersive) or 4K or 8K. But at the same time, it's also interesting that there's a fear of change. As humans, we seem to have a fear of the new. I remember hearing CDs for the first and there are still people today who insist that vinyl's better and will buy all the albums that they can if they're available on vinyl and that's what they'll play. And I remember the hysterical headlines about the Beatles never being available on CD because you were never going to get the same clarity as you did on vinyl. And I can see that with 48 we're going to go down the same road."

Yet despite the additional rendering cost (which is quadrupled in 3-D), which Jackson is covering himself through his vast resources at Weta, he definitely has no regrets. "I find it a much more gentle experience because the 3-D at 24 frames is forcing your brain to process all this blur and strobing and I find that a lot more assaultive. Forty-eight to me is a lot smoother and more genuine. It's not just the movement but the clarity, which is why filmmakers chose to shoot in 65 mm or continue to shoot sequences in IMAX. Fortunately, the Red Epics were designed alongside 'The Hobbit' so they gave us everything we needed."

It's all about delivering a new kind of spectacle in keeping with the looser and more whimsical tone of "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey." "We embraced the fact that this was not 'Lord of the Rings' and wanted to be faithful to the way the story originated," he explains. "Of course, we're in a strange situation because the book that Tolkien wrote 20 years before 'Lord of the Rings' is the second story that we're telling. It's the wrong way around but the genesis of the project, which was written as a children's story, is what we wanted to be faithful to. It has a fast pace and a much younger feeling than the more apocalyptic sequel.


  • Kill 3D Please, Keep 48fps | December 6, 2012 3:37 PMReply

    Why aren't there nearly as many articles about the divide 3D has created as there are about 48fps? 48fps is a good step forward. It is for motion quality what imax is for single frame quality. 3D is a gimmick. A gimmick that is poorly used in most cases and entirely unnecessary in more cases. You need 3D to interact with an environment. That something you do with a VR game experience but not a theatrical movie experience. 3D reduces movie image quality, induces viewing discomfort, and empties wallets when you should be charged less for a diminished experience than being charged more for it. There's a place for 3D, just as there is for B&W and silent movies. But not everyone movie needs to be 3D, not most of them.

    On the other hand, every movie can benefit from better frame rates. Every time a camera pans in 24fps you get a sickening strobe effect. As soon as you point it out to people, they are equally annoyed by it. There are motion artifacts in 24fps that are reduced with faster frame rates.

    Keep faster frame rates, keep larger frame sizes, kill 3D overall.

  • John Brune | December 6, 2012 3:04 PMReply

    Gag. 60 fps for Avatar sequels? Isn't that simply called VIDEO? And they're all trying to market this like it's something new. Guess what--kids are watching movies on iPads because they can. Simple. Movies will always rule as the best way to watch a film because the screen is so big. As long as that never changes then everything else is a gimmick--Cinemascope, Todd-AO, Vista Vision, MGM Camera 65, Cinerama, 3D, 1.85, 2.35, Digital, and now VIDEO are all gimmicks. 24 frame film and 24 frame anything is my preferred gimmick.

  • Pete | December 5, 2012 7:43 PMReply

    Tim, you're taking the word 'realism' out of context here and it becomes a red herring, especially after Jackson specifically names the two prime visual artifacts he's always had a problem with: motion blur and strobing. I love film from every era, and have less of a problem with motion blur - but even I can admit that strobing is an awful and distracting problem that I would like to see eliminated for good.

    This series of videos is quite informative - a panel with Douglas Trumbull, Larry Thorpe and Mark Schubin, where they explain the technical details behind the many, many frame-rates employed by film makers over the past century, as well as the history of how our current frame rates were settled upon as standards.

    I'll come right out and paraphrase their main point which is that 24 fps is not sacred, and it was 'settled' upon by people who (my take) couldn't give the first shit about artistic intent or emotional expression. I'd urge you, great quotes or otherwise, to not attribute too much sanctity to a technical parameter that is so obviously arbitrary.

  • Tim | December 6, 2012 5:48 PM

    thanks again for the video link - I especially enjoyed part 6, where they talk about how ironically, George Lucas was at the forefront of making 24p a reality!

  • Tim | December 6, 2012 2:57 PM

    You make a very good point about the arbitrariness of the current 24 fps standard. I wasn't trying to claim that 24 fps is inherently better or more natural or whatever, just that "realism" is a contested term with a lot of very different meanings, and so presenting 48 fps as inherently more realistic, or as part of some sort of teleological march of progress, is wrong-headed. I personally think that 48 fps makes motion look awkward and too sharp for my preference, but I don't think that makes it less "realistic." Nor do I think that eliminating strobing makes it more realistic (or that eliminating motion blur - something that we experience in real life - makes it less realistic). I think Jackson, Cameron and Lucas toss around that word more for marketing purposes than in an attempt to accurately describe how the different frame rates effect us, and I think the conversation would benefit a lot from dropping the word completely and trying to find different, more precise words instead. Anyway, thanks a bunch for the link. I'm looking forward to watching the video series.

  • Tim | December 5, 2012 3:26 PMReply

    It seems ridiculous to me to flatly call a technical parameter like a certain frame rate "realistic" as if that label didn't need any further elaboration or articulation. David Bordwell said it best:

    "It’s hard to believe that Lucas and Cameron [and Jackson] don’t know the long tradition of debate in the arts about realism. Realism can be considered a question of subject matter, plot plausibility, random detail, psychological revelation, and many other things; it isn’t just about trompe l’oeil illusion. Moreover, documentary and experimental filmmakers have suggested that cinema can capture moments of unplanned truth. And André Bazin and others have argued that even when presenting fictional tales, photographic cinema gives us unique access to some essential qualities of phenomenal reality. For Bazin, even an awkwardly shot scene could preserve the sensuous surface of things with a conviction that no painterly manipulation can equal—not perfection but brute facticity. Instead, Lucas and Cameron offer a Frank Frazetta notion of realism: glistening, overripe, academically correct rendering of things we’ve seen many times before."

Free Indie Movies and Documentaries    

Email Updates

Most "Liked"

  • Why Weinstein Is Re-Releasing Summer ...
  • First Gurus 'O Gold Pre-Festival Top ...
  • Emmy Watch: As TV Enters the Future, ...
  • Emmy Awards: Lena Dunham Wins the Red ...
  • The Radical World of Avant-Garde Master ...
  • Participant Joins DreamWorks' Spielberg ...
  • Strange August Box Office Weekend Boosted ...
  • How David Byrne Collaborated with Jonathan ...
  • WATCH: Live Stream Emmys Red Carpet ...
  • Participant Media, Changing Its Stripes, ...