Peter Jackson posts some words on 48fps and his recent decision

K

kylevant

Well-known member
Peter Jackson posted some interesting words on his Facebook page just now with regards to the 48fps issue.

... let me give you more detail about my decision to screen the Hobbit Reel at Comic Con in 2-D and 24 fps. My LA Times quotes are brief and the topic deserves a little more detail than that. We have conducted many private screenings of Hobbit footage in the US and several international territories, running the same reel twice - once at 24fps, and secondly at 48fps. This has allowed distributors and exhibitors direct comparison of the two formats. The response has been universally strong for the higher frame rate of 48fps.
When we screened only the 48fps reel at CinemaCon a few months ago, some bloggers focussed stories, not on the content, but on their negative reaction to 10 mins of high frame rate footage. This reaction convinced me that the only fair way to experience 48fps, is to sit down and watch a complete feature length movie, with a narrative, not quick trailer cuts. Do I want the ComicCon Hobbit stories to be all about 48 fps? Of course I don't. I want to present footage from a movie we're all proud of, with terrific performances and I'm looking forward to seeing what you think.

I've always been happy to bet on myself, and for me the experience of watching the full Hobbit movie in 3-D and 48 fps is something really special. Fully immersive, like stepping into Middle-earth. The screen disappears, and you enter the world of the movie in a vivid way. I love it.

The subject of high frame rates has serious film industry implications, and it's important that it's judged in the fairest possible context. I'm afraid that a presentation of a short clip reel in a huge convention center is simply not the way to do it. I'm sorry if people attending Comic Con were hoping to see a glimpse of 48 fps, but let me say that in December, if you choose to see the Hobbit in a great cinema, projecting the higher frame rate, you will be in the best place to make up your own mind. And you will have the choice - there will be plenty of cinemas screening both versions.

Here's my prediction: this time next year, there will be several movies shooting at 48 fps. As an industry, we have to push the current technology to provide more spectacular and immersive experience in the cinema, on a nice huge screen.
Click to expand...

Original link: http://www.facebook.com/notes/peter...p-on-the-plane-to-comic-con/10151078936971558
 
I for one am looking forward to seeing it in 2D 48fps. I'll drive to another city if I have to. And I probably will have to. Sigh...
 
Many a better director than Jackson has lost his cinematic way as of late (Scorsese saying he wishes Goodfellas coulda been in :gulp: digital 3D, etc.)

Again I say; at least Crusaders like Nolan are still fighting the good fight.
 
I think 3D will evolve and be something customary in the future, but right now the resistance forces are greater since the technology is in its infancy, it's cumbersone and doesn't add much technical-artistical depth to the narrative. I fully endorse the choice of frame rates, a director or DP should be free to shoot and display a piece in the frame rate that he/she intends and not be limited by standards.
 
Pietro Impagliazzo said:
I think 3D will evolve and be something customary in the future...
Click to expand...

I agree. 3D will continue to be used for the blockbusting epic films, but it won't become a standard by any degree. The expense and impracticality of shooting 3D just doesn't out weigh the advantages (Which are? A little depth? I like my bokeh, thank you very much).
 
Will Turner said:
Shallow depth of field 3d doesn't make sense to me.
Click to expand...

It is the biggest issue I have with 3D. With 2D focus is used to suggest where to look while leaving you free to explore the frame (because your eyes don't have to adjust in the z axis). With 3D if you happen to glance in the wrong part of the frame it takes a couple of seconds to find where and how deep to look again. There is less freedom. Which is ridiculous because the point of 3D should be immersion in the scene (rather than but not exclusive of the story) and freedom is an important part of that. You should be able to look around a scene and appreciate the production value.

That said I've seen at least one now that made good use of the format (John Carter) so I haven't given up on it yet. 3D is one of those things I always wanted, they made it, it was exactly what I had asked for, and it wasn't that great. But as more filmmakers get to grips with the dos and don'ts such as remembering to consider the z-axis as well as the xy plane in continuity of movement for example, it may reach the ability to be worthwhile. In the meantime it has just made me appreciate the artistry of 2D composition all the more.

As for 48fps, I expect to be disappointed but maybe it too will defy my expectations. I'll certainly give it a go but we'll see. It could be a good thing. If 3D 48fps becomes the norm whether due to popular choice or industry 'we'll decide what you want' mentality, 2D 24fps could become the exclusive domain of the artist, as the painter superceeded by the photographer. With the amount of money cinemas have been forced to invest in new equipment I don't think it will be going away anytime soon.
 
I don't think 3D projected on flat screens will ever be the norm because it is visually quite stressful. Your eyes and brain are being tasked to derive depth information from two images in the same two dimensional plane. Depth perception doesn't really work that way.
 
Razz16mm said:
I don't think 3D projected on flat screens will ever be the norm because it is visually quite stressful. Your eyes and brain are being tasked to derive depth information from two images in the same two dimensional plane. Depth perception doesn't really work that way.
Click to expand...

Agreed. What we think of as 3D now will not be the standard in the future. It simply doesn't work very well.

Well enough for some films, sure, but not as a general standard to shoot and screen everything in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top