Peter Jackson on 48fps in The Hobbit

News Glen Chapman 7 Dec 2012 - 07:07
Peter Jackson on the set of The Hobbit

Reaction to the 48fps deployed in The Hobbit has not been uniformly positive. Here's what Peter Jackson has to say...

Cinema-goers have, whether we like it or not, got accustomed to having to chose between 3D and 2D screenings of films. But with the release of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey next week, now we'll have to chose between 24fps and 48fps, the latter of which has received less than welcome responses from some of those who have seen the film so far.

Here's what director Peter Jackson has to say about it:

“I'm fascinated by reactions, I'm tending to see that anyone under the age of 20 or so doesn't really care and thinks it looks cool. I think 3D at 24 frames is interesting, but it's the 48 that actually allows 3D to almost achieve the potential it can achieve because it's less eye strain and you have a sharper picture.”

He continues by commenting on the method of shooting:

“Warner Bros were very supportive, they just wanted us to prove that the 24 frame version would look normal, which it does, but once they were happy with that, on first day, when we had to press that button saying '48 frames' even though on that first day we started shooting 48fps, you could probably say there wasn't a single cinema in the world that would project the movie in that format. It was a big leap of faith. The big thing to realise is that it's not an attempt to change the film industry, it's another choice. The projectors that can run at 48 fps – it doesn't have to be one thing or another. You can shoot a movie at 24 frames and have sequences at 48 or 60 frames within the body of the film.”

He closed by saying:

“You can still do all the shutter-angle and strobing effects. It doesn't necessarily change how films are going to be made. It's another choice that filmmakers have got and for me, it gives that sense of reality that I love in cinema.”

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is released next week.

Coming Soon

Follow Den Of Geek on Twitter right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

Disqus - noscript

I don't get the brouhaha. Some like it, some don't. Some complain about nausea, some love the insanely clear picture. The same goes for 2D vs. 3D. Some people hate 3D. If you do, you don't have to go and see a movie in 3D, there are always options. 48fps isn't mandatory. Most cinemas aren't even equipped for it. So, if you have doubts, go and see it in 24fps! What's the big deal?

the problem I find, is that I would enjoy watching both formats, but when a movie is released in 3D the cinemas always choose to screen it on their biggest screen and those who want to watch it in 2D have to go into small screens that my TV is bigger that most of those screens..oh you know what I mean!

Oh great, I can't wait to see the blank faces of the Cineworld Enfield staff when I ask them which of their screens is showing the film at 48fps.

At most cinemas it's listed separatey, under 'HFR 3D'. I know a bunch of Odeon and Vue cinemas are playing it like that.

I'm seeing it in 2D myself, but might see it a second time to check out the HFR version.

Sadly, I live in the ass-end of West Virginia. I really wanted to see the 48fps in action, but I won't have a choice. Oh, well.

I live on top of a mountain in Wyoming, I will be lucky to see it in 3d, or even HD even. Ill have to drive to Denver for 48fps, so thats a negative for me. Ill have to rely on others to tell me how good or bad it will be.

Not true, I could not find ANYWHERE showing Dredd in 2-D.

I don't mind a choice, i just dont like being force fed 3-D.

I have trouble finding 2D screenings of movies. I'm a fan of 3D, when it's done well, but seeing as how it often isn't, I'd rather see 2D most of the time. At my local cineplex, they may have two screenings a day in 2D and the rest in 3D. One of the 2D screenings is always the first showing of the day. If there weren't that ridiculous surcharge for 3D, I wouldn't mind as much. I've skipped the cinemas on several movies because only 3D was showing and the film was either a retrofit or wasn't something I felt merited the extra cabbage.

Nobody wants 48fps Pete!! Like nobody wants 3D!!!! When will filmmakers learn this!!!

Wrong, I welcome the prospect of seeing 48FPS used in cinema - providing it's done well. Like I've said all along on here, I will withhold judgement on what I think of the technology until I've seen the film in 48FPS. As everyone else should do, in my opinion. In fact, I will most likely later go and see it in (2D) 24p later on just to see what sort of difference it makes.

In Jackson I trust...

I booked a ticket to see this in 48 fps IMAX 3D (or probs 'lie-max) and I seriously can't wait for it because of particularly how Jackson chose to make the film in. It is still a groundbreaking format and I don't want to miss this opportunity to try it out and then judge.

I refuse to pay more for a 2D film, 3D film, nor will pay for 48fpm either. Basically, I will wait until this comes out on bluray before I see it, because no movie is worth $15(going price for movies in my area, $13 for Matinee) in the cinema to put up with the bullshit issues that always come up at the cinema(sticky floors, idiots talking, cell phones ringing, noisy kids, crying babies, etc). If I am going to pay $15+ for a movie, I watching it at home, where I can enjoy it in peace by locking the kids out of the home theater room.

Well done, you'be bought into the hype & will see the same film twice based purely on technology!!

^Yep, because I'm genuinely curious how well it will work. Silly old me.

Sponsored Links