For nearly a century, there has been one frame rate for motion pictures: 24 frames per second (FPS). There’s a dreamy and not-quite-real quality to it that enhances the storytelling, making you forget that you’re watching actors on a set or drawings on a page. Sure, people have experimented with other frame rates, and some have advocated for 48 or even 60 FPS to become the standard; but for reasons both technical and aesthetic, we’ve always come back to 24 FPS. That may soon change. Last Monday Peter Jackson announced on Facebook that The Hobbit is not only being shot in 3D, but at 48 frames per second. To my knowledge, this will be the first feature film to do so, and will test the acceptability waters in a very big way. This is not a small thing. This fundamentally changes the cinema experience. Though 24 FPS is indeed the filmmaking standard, once we welcomed TV sets into our living rooms, there was a new frame rate on the block: 60 fields per second, or about 30 FPS. This was necessary due to the way video cameras and electricity worked, and it created all sorts of new technical challenges that we still live with today. Things like news broadcasts, soap operas, and game shows are shot at 30 FPS. Even some sitcoms and other more dramatic fare have been shot at 30 FPS, with 24 FPS usually reserved for hour-long shows like Star Trek. But while 30 and 24 may not seem very far apart, those six frames can make a big difference. When I was growing up, my family watched COSBY, a sitcom starring, well, Bill Cosby. It was a fun show, but there was always something about it that bothered me: whenever the characters went outside, it would suddenly feel different. I couldn’t articulate it at the time, but now I know that what I was feeling was a change in frame rate. The interior scenes were shot on video at 30 FPS, but the exteriors were probably shot on film at 24 FPS. (You can see what I mean by watching the last minute of this clip.) Six frames may create a subtle difference, but it’s a difference that was noticeable to an eleven-year-old. In his Facebook announcement, Mr. Jackson makes a compelling argument that shooting and projecting the movie at 48 fps reduces eyestrain and makes for a more pleasant moviegoing experience. I can’t help but be curious to see what it looks like. But to be honest, I’m also slightly troubled. Perhaps I’m too heavily influenced by the Stu Maschwitz school, but while I think this might be good for 3D movies, in general, I’m greatly opposed to anything other than 24 fps for filmmaking. Actually, I’m generally opposed to any attempts at making cinema more ‘immersive.’ There is a great difference between a theme park ride and cinema. The former is a simulation; the latter is an artistic expression. While there is some common ground between them, the core goal is different. We go to movies, not to feel like we’re on a roller coaster or be rocked in our seat by explosions, but to be told a story. That is where the visceral experience comes from. I don’t think that making films more immersive will enhance storytelling, because no matter how immersive a movie gets, you’re still a passive observer. In 3D movies, though you can see in 3D, you can’t choose what object to focus your eyes on; you can’t swing your head around and see the person behind you. Rather than helping a film be more immersive, in some ways 3D can make a film more distant, like you’re watching the action through a window. We’re seeing convergence where we should be seeing divergence. The development of cinema didn’t eliminate the desire for stories told in print, nor did it lead to books becoming more ‘immersive.’ Similarly, 3D technology, higher frame rates, and theme park rides all have their place, but that place isn’t necessarily a convergence with cinema. The goal of these technologies is immersion, but cinema is about telling great stories. There is a place for both the holodeck and the movie theater; they don’t need to be combined to survive. It seems that the latest filmmaking technologies have more in common with video games than cinematic filmmaking, and would likely find a more welcome home in that arena. Perhaps there’s a new art form out there waiting to be discovered, a combination of video games, theme park rides, and cinema. But it won’t be cinema; it will be interactive, it will be a simulation, it’ll be more real. Cinema isn’t about reality. It’s about fantasy. So what I’m really afraid of is that The Hobbit will feel more real and less fantastic because of its higher frame rate. Because if 48 FPS makes the film feel more real, it will feel more like actors on a set wearing wigs and hairy rubber feet. That’s not the kind of reality I want. I want to see Gandalf up there on the big screen, not Ian McKellan with a prosthetic nose. I won’t dismiss Peter Jackson’s remarks. He’s an incredible director, and he’s seen the footage. He knows what he’s talking about. I’ll withhold judgment until I and millions of others get to see The Hobbit for the first time. And really, after seeing his video blog, none of this may matter. It’s The Hobbit! At 48 FPS on a huge screen or at 0 FPS on a printed page, it’s an engrossing story written by a master. Let’s focus on that as we cautiously evaluate where filmmaking is headed.
Pop-upView Separately

For nearly a century, there has been one frame rate for motion pictures: 24 frames per second (FPS). There’s a dreamy and not-quite-real quality to it that enhances the storytelling, making you forget that you’re watching actors on a set or drawings on a page. Sure, people have experimented with other frame rates, and some have advocated for 48 or even 60 FPS to become the standard; but for reasons both technical and aesthetic, we’ve always come back to 24 FPS.

That may soon change.

Last Monday Peter Jackson announced on Facebook that The Hobbit is not only being shot in 3D, but at 48 frames per second. To my knowledge, this will be the first feature film to do so, and will test the acceptability waters in a very big way. This is not a small thing. This fundamentally changes the cinema experience.

Though 24 FPS is indeed the filmmaking standard, once we welcomed TV sets into our living rooms, there was a new frame rate on the block: 60 fields per second, or about 30 FPS. This was necessary due to the way video cameras and electricity worked, and it created all sorts of new technical challenges that we still live with today.

Things like news broadcasts, soap operas, and game shows are shot at 30 FPS. Even some sitcoms and other more dramatic fare have been shot at 30 FPS, with 24 FPS usually reserved for hour-long shows like Star Trek. But while 30 and 24 may not seem very far apart, those six frames can make a big difference.

When I was growing up, my family watched COSBY, a sitcom starring, well, Bill Cosby. It was a fun show, but there was always something about it that bothered me: whenever the characters went outside, it would suddenly feel different. I couldn’t articulate it at the time, but now I know that what I was feeling was a change in frame rate. The interior scenes were shot on video at 30 FPS, but the exteriors were probably shot on film at 24 FPS. (You can see what I mean by watching the last minute of this clip.)

Six frames may create a subtle difference, but it’s a difference that was noticeable to an eleven-year-old.

In his Facebook announcement, Mr. Jackson makes a compelling argument that shooting and projecting the movie at 48 fps reduces eyestrain and makes for a more pleasant moviegoing experience. I can’t help but be curious to see what it looks like.

But to be honest, I’m also slightly troubled.

Perhaps I’m too heavily influenced by the Stu Maschwitz school, but while I think this might be good for 3D movies, in general, I’m greatly opposed to anything other than 24 fps for filmmaking. Actually, I’m generally opposed to any attempts at making cinema more ‘immersive.’

There is a great difference between a theme park ride and cinema. The former is a simulation; the latter is an artistic expression. While there is some common ground between them, the core goal is different. We go to movies, not to feel like we’re on a roller coaster or be rocked in our seat by explosions, but to be told a story. That is where the visceral experience comes from.

I don’t think that making films more immersive will enhance storytelling, because no matter how immersive a movie gets, you’re still a passive observer. In 3D movies, though you can see in 3D, you can’t choose what object to focus your eyes on; you can’t swing your head around and see the person behind you. Rather than helping a film be more immersive, in some ways 3D can make a film more distant, like you’re watching the action through a window.

We’re seeing convergence where we should be seeing divergence. The development of cinema didn’t eliminate the desire for stories told in print, nor did it lead to books becoming more ‘immersive.’ Similarly, 3D technology, higher frame rates, and theme park rides all have their place, but that place isn’t necessarily a convergence with cinema. The goal of these technologies is immersion, but cinema is about telling great stories. There is a place for both the holodeck and the movie theater; they don’t need to be combined to survive.

It seems that the latest filmmaking technologies have more in common with video games than cinematic filmmaking, and would likely find a more welcome home in that arena. Perhaps there’s a new art form out there waiting to be discovered, a combination of video games, theme park rides, and cinema. But it won’t be cinema; it will be interactive, it will be a simulation, it’ll be more real. Cinema isn’t about reality. It’s about fantasy.

So what I’m really afraid of is that The Hobbit will feel more real and less fantastic because of its higher frame rate. Because if 48 FPS makes the film feel more real, it will feel more like actors on a set wearing wigs and hairy rubber feet. That’s not the kind of reality I want. I want to see Gandalf up there on the big screen, not Ian McKellan with a prosthetic nose.

I won’t dismiss Peter Jackson’s remarks. He’s an incredible director, and he’s seen the footage. He knows what he’s talking about. I’ll withhold judgment until I and millions of others get to see The Hobbit for the first time. And really, after seeing his video blog, none of this may matter. It’s The Hobbit! At 48 FPS on a huge screen or at 0 FPS on a printed page, it’s an engrossing story written by a master.

Let’s focus on that as we cautiously evaluate where filmmaking is headed.

Source: facebook.com

3 Notes/ Hide

  1. whatisfightclub reblogged this from dmcondolora
  2. dmcondolora posted this