#48 fps

Der Hobbit – eine unerwartete Reise

  Sehnsüchtig erwartet, wenn auch nach Bekanntgabe, dass das Ganze eine Trilogie wird, etwas empört, ist nun endlich der neue Mittelerde Streifen am Start. Für alte Mittelerde-Hasen bzw. Nerds wie mich (alle Herr der Ringe Teile direkt am ersten Tag gesehen, das war immer DAS Dezember Highlight – hach) wohl ein wichtiges Kinoereignis des Jahres. So fühlt sich man sich dann auch nach 10 Minuten…

I'm sure everyone hashed this out last year when the first installation of The Hobbit was released, but unfortunately I wasn't able to make it to a theater that was screening the film at 48 frames per second.

Last night, though, my family and I went to the incredible Cinerama theater, here in Seattle, and experienced The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug in all its HFR-3D glory. I have to admit, I'm not a great fan of Tolkien's work, and while the films are astounding technical achievements, and a great many filmmakers and technicians poured their heart and soul into these films over the past many years, they are much like geek-cred medicine for me — something that I must swallow so that I can finally know the stories that I have thus far failed to motivate myself to read.

Story aside, I wanted to see what the HFR experience was like ("HFR" being another acronym that seems to me confusing and arbitrary, like "HD" did once, that I'm sure I will grudgingly come to accept). In this case, the High Frame Rate in question is only 48 fps, and not 60, like Douglas Trumbull's Showscan format, which I wish I could have experienced. However, television as we know it in the United States is updated at 60 fields per second (yes fields, which are like half-frames, and a subject for another day), and in Europe at 50 fields per second, so most of use have experienced high frame rates on a regular basis.

Having worked in television for a number of years, and for many of those as an "online editor" — someone concerned with (among other things) ensuring that the show is technically polished to meet broadcast specs, I am likely much more well versed in the nuances of frame rates and the minutiae of film vs. video than the average viewer, so I didn't trust myself to not have a preconceived notion of what the experience would be like. To recruit some more impartial viewers, I dragged my family along on this experiment under the pretense of "fun."

After viewing it with my family, and asking my kids and wife what they thought of the experience, these were the main takeaways:

The difference from a normal film was jarring at first, but the kids got used to it after a while. Me, I never quite got over the sensation of watching an incredibly expensive soap opera.

The kids felt that it seemed more like television. This didn't seem to have a very negative connotation attached for them, but for me, it felt cheap.

My son said that to him, the big sweeping CGI vistas and animated characters here felt much more like a cut scene from a modern video game — well lit and rendered, but missing something that made it feel real.

Accordingly, the CGI-heavy scenes vs. the live action scenes that were shot with a camera felt more pronouncedly different than they do in other modern films. Perhaps something about the higher temporal resolution that made the "animatedness" more apparent.

My daughter remarked that the dragon, Smaug, was the best CGI creature animation she'd ever seen, and I may have to agree. Even at the higher frame rate, the animation of that character was astoundingly lifelike, and the level of detail in the model and the way it moved, including the motion of muscles beneath the skin, were beyond compare.

My wife, who occasionally gets headaches from 3D films, got a very nasty headache from this one, and I, who generally do not have a problem watching 3D, also got a headache from this one — which seems to counter Peter Jackson's assertion that higher frame rates make for a smoother 3D experience.

There is some debate to be had about 24fps being something that we've just gotten used to associating with high quality film productions, and 50/60fps being more associated with cheaper TV productions, and the difference is jarring for those of us who have been trained that way — but perhaps younger generations who watch so much of their entertainment on YouTube don't care about the trappings of "high production value" and just care about the story, and will eventually embrace this new addition to the medium. There is another line of thought that higher frame rates will never be widely accepted for narrative film because there's something about the way our brain processes it at an evolutionary level.

Late to the Movies: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

I don’t want to spill a lot of words on this one since it’s already been talked to death (and subsequently half forgotten). I eyed this movie warily before it came out as it got passed from Guilermo Del Toro back to Peter Jackson and then expanded from one to two to three movies for reasons that didn’t seem to make a lot of sense, at least from a creative standpoint. My wariness grew as I heard reports of the 48 FPS projection and its disturbing, more-vivid-than-life-itself qualities and intensified when the less-than-stellar reviews started appearing. Nonetheless, it’s not like I wasn’t going to see it. I love Jackson’s Lord Of The Rings trilogy. Worst-case scenario, this would just feel like a bloated postscript with some memorable moments.

It’s good to prepare worst-case scenarios, isn’t it? Leaving aside the 48 FPS issue for the moment, it’s a slog to get to the memorable sequences. Watching it, I was reminded of how deftly Jackson and his collaborators adapted the massive Rings trilogy into three films. It took some effort to streamline all that narrative into feature-length films (longs ones, sure) while still finding room for the characters to come alive and the space for all those action sequences. The Hobbit has trouble pulling off the same trick in reverse. I knew I was in trouble when Bilbo breathlessly laid out the back story for what felt like 30 minutes and then the subtitle, An Unexpected Journey, flashed on the screen. There’s good stuff between the bloat, though. Martin Freeman’s a lot of fun as Bilbo, Ian McKellen has some fine moments, and the confrontation with Gollum is a real highlight. There’s a lot of imagination in the production design, too. (I was particularly fond of the Storm Giants, but could have done without the scrotum-necked Goblin King.)

As for the 48 FPS projection, I can’t say I wasn’t warned and I didn’t expect to like it. But my attitude was to treat it like an aesthetic choice. Jackson wanted the moive to have that look so I should give it a chance. We live in changing times. I love film as much as the next person but I’ve seen some directors find the aesthetic advantages in digital. (Che was a real turning point for me in appreciating what someone who knows how to play to the strengths of new technology can do.) And I can kind of see why he would want The Hobbit to have that look. In the effects sequences, where real actors fight CGI beasties, both realities live side-by-side seamlessly. As proof that, yes, Jackson’s effects studio knows what it’s doing, it’s extremely impressive.

On the other hand, it’s that sort of vividness is all wrong for a movie like The Hobbit, at least to my eyes. Why give a fantasy film the hard digital sheen of news footage? There’s a scene in the goblin cave when Gandalf scares off the bad guys with a flash of light and it took me a moment to figure out what the flash of light reminded me of. Then it hit me: It looked like a stage effect, as if someone were shining a spotlight at the audience. Carrying that thought a little further, The Hobbit looked like a really elaborate version of a filmed opera much of the time, a sort of Live From The Met with orcs instead of arias. I felt less transported to another world than dropped in the middle of its elaborate sets. Is that where we’re heading, toward movies that aspire to be more like a windows than a canvases? I hope not. I’m glad I had a look at what 48 FPS looks like, but I left The Hobbit hoping never to see it again.

Interesting article about how people perceive HFR, or 48 fps, in movies.

So I saw The Hobbit last night.  It was pretty fun.  We went to the 3D/48fps version so as to get the full experience.  It was definitely an experience.  There's been a lot of whoopla about the shooting format, so I was curious to see the results for myself.  I'm not so keen on 3D but I thought the decision to shoot in 48 frames per second was cool if not totally successful.  You know what--props to them for taking a chance.

So the 48fps might look like a high budget Masterpiece Theatre video game.  I think that Peter Jackson is playing with a look that blurs lines between hyperrealism and illustration.  Who else can claim that?  Furthermore, the 48fps definitely enhanced the 3D experience.  

Okay, granted on the one hand the look doesn't really go over.  It takes you out of the moment too much.  But on the other hand, as an artistic decision I appreciate that.  I think that Peter Jackson is making films that are self-reflexive to a certain extent.  There are meta-narratives within the diegesis as well as without.  To have filmed this first installment of the Hobbit to look like a soap opera is interesting, whether you like the end result or not.