[Dr. Eugene Felikson]

Will Peter Jackson's The Hobbit change cinema for ever?

The Lord of the Rings director is shooting his new film at 48 frames per second – twice as fast as the industry standard

• 
  
   
  A still from Peter Jackson’s old-fashioned 24fps film The Lord Of The Rings: The Return Of The King Photograph: New Line Productions
  
  The cinema, said Jean-Luc Godard, is truth, 24 times per second. That's not truthful enough for some people. This week, Peter Jackson announced that he is shooting his new version of The Hobbit at 48 frames per second, a massively more expensive process that captures movement and detail with far greater accuracy. In his blog, Jackson says that we have tolerated the sprockety old 24fps speed for far too long, and this is like "the moment when vinyl records were supplanted by digital CDs". Jackson calls for cinemas worldwide to switch over to 48fps projection speeds to show his Hobbit, which is of course in 3D; he dismisses "purists" unhappy at the consequent textural loss of blur and strobing – comparable, perhaps, to art historians who lament the cleaning of an Old Master canvas, which removes its grainy, characterful darkness.
  Are we witnessing that most unreliable phenomenon: the game-changer? Higher frame-rates have been mooted before, but like Imax and 3D, they have been used for theme-park displays: the economics of mass cinema distribution have made them untenable. But now Jackson is pushing hard for 48fps as the new gold standard. Is there no turning back? Will this be the future of cinema? It's difficult to tell. When Avatar came out, 3D was the coming thing, 2D was yesterdaysville. And yet the business has been relying on DVD sales, downloads and home entertainment. Can Avatar and the new 3D generation play as well on TV and computer screens? Last month there were worrying signs that even on the big screen, 3D hasn't cured all ills. Ticket sales are down. 3D flops such as Mars Needs Moms haven't helped. And people are still stubbornly unhappy about the dimming effect created by those hi-tech new specs.
  So how do we know when the game changes? When the talkies came in with The Jazz Singer, it changed in a big way. Silents were out. Many thought the same about radio when television came in: and yet radio survived and prospered. As for 48fps, Peter Jackson is almost certainly right when he says it's a cleaner, truer watch. But will the difficult economics of the movie business permit its widespread introduction? As Al Jolson might have said – we don't know nothin' yet.

James Cameron expects 100% 3D within the next five years

All film and TV will be made in 3D soon, says Avatar director as he launches venture promoting industry take-up of technology

• 
  
   
  Outdated ... soon, says James Cameron, we won't need these to view 3D films or TV. Photograph: Alamy
  
  Every cinema will be capable of showing 3D films within five years, James Cameron said yesterday at the launch of a new venture which aims to make the technology ubiquitous on both the big and small screen.
  The Cameron-Pace Group, which utilises technology developed for the film Avatar, aims to encourage film-makers, broadcasters and games manufacturers to embrace the brave new world of stereoscope. Cameron has partnered with Vince Pace, with whom he worked on the Fusion 3D camera system.
  "Our strategic plan is to make 3D ubiquitous over the next five to 10 years on all platforms," Cameron told the Hollywood Reporter. He said he expected to see 100% adoption of the technology in cinemas within three to five years, as well as rapid expansion of the home market.
  "We are shifting from having to create 50-70 (camera systems) for movies to thousands of rigs that need to be got out there for the rapidly growing broadcasting business," said Cameron. With 3D TVs already available for the home and TV channels broadcasting in stereoscope, the film-maker said there was a "content gap" which the new venture hoped to help fill.
  "Broadcasting is the future of 3D," Cameron said during a keynote speech at the National Association of Broadcasters Show in Las Vegas yesterday. "In two years, everything will be produced in 3D and 2D versions will be extracted from that."
  The Terminator director added that 3D in the home would really take off once new technology emerged which meant that viewers did not have to wear glasses. The adoption curve "is going to go ballistic" said Cameron.
  Some reports last year seized on box-office data suggesting the number of people preferring to see a film in 3D had dropped dramatically as evidence that the boom might be nearing its end. Hollywood studios have scoffed at the notion, however, and with three out of the top five films at the global box office last year having been screened in stereoscope, naysayers may be waiting a while for the fad to fizzle out.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/...inema-director

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/...ameron-3d-film

[noisereductions]

yawn.

[Dr. Eugene Felikson]

The 48fps is especially interesting to me. Isn't that how they shot the fight scenes in Gladiator/Saving Private Ryan, and then just projected it in 24fps... am I right about that?

And if you're gonna raise the fps... why not just shoot digital? This is sort of confusing to me.

[Dr. Eugene Felikson]

I dunno, Cameron has some credibility when it comes to new film technology. Terminator 2 was at the forefront of the big CGI shift.

And even though Avatar was a lamer sack of piss than the entire LOTR trilogy, it was a game-changer in how it applied 3D technology to the depth of field, rather than gimmicks.

I mean, obviously the classics will always remain in 2D, but there is a lot of potential to 3D. Like Argento's 3D Dracula, and Herzog's 3D cave drawing documentary... I'd love to see those.

[jonathan]

I've never seen a 3D movie that looked more realistic than a well done 2D movie. Even Avatar looked really cartoon-y and fake and way less believable than Yoda.

[noisereductions]

open letter to Peter Jackson:

Peter,

Please just make horror movies. Nerd.

Sincerely,

--NR

[Derek]

I think CGI and the like just make things easier and so devalue the movie a little.

If you allow me to make an analogy, it is a bit like when I make music. Yeah sure I could just get a synthesiser and hold down a few keys for 10 minutes but I'd rather take my guitar and build something up myself and replicate sounds that a guitar isn't supposed to make. The creativity I have put personally into the sound is what makes it so special to me listening back even though I could easily do the exact same with the easier option.

[noisereductions]

Originally Posted by Derek

I think CGI and the like just make things easier and so devalue the movie a little.

If you allow me to make an analogy, it is a bit like when I make music. Yeah sure I could just get a synthesiser and hold down a few keys for 10 minutes but I'd rather take my guitar and build something up myself and replicate sounds that a guitar isn't supposed to make. The creativity I have put personally into the sound is what makes it so special to me listening back even though I could easily do the exact same with the easier option.

like how in the original Nighmare On Elm Street, when Freddy pushes his face thru the bedroom wall, but they REALLY did it - Robrert England was pushing has face thru a stretchy bit of wall -- it looked scary! But in the remake it looked like a video game.

[tesla69]

I don't think this analogy is the one he wants: "and this is like "the moment when vinyl records were supplanted by digital CDs"."

We all know how that went..

[floatingslowly]

I prefer Ralph Bakshi.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by noisereductions

like how in the original Nighmare On Elm Street, when Freddy pushes his face thru the bedroom wall, but they REALLY did it - Robrert England was pushing has face thru a stretchy bit of wall -- it looked scary! But in the remake it looked like a video game.

Yeah, exactly. I'd rather the blood was raspberry jam and cream like in EVIL DEAD than some digital effect added in by the click of a button in post-production.

[noisereductions]

100% derek.

[!@#$%!]

why 3D sucks

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html

[gualbert]

Because kids will be scared and pee in their pants when a dragon comes off the screen, right in front of their nose.
Cause old people might get a heart attack.
Cause it's very expensive.
Cause it's useless for movies with no car chase, epic battles, action scenes in general.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by gualbert

Because kids will be scared and pee in their pants when a dragon comes off the screen, right in front of their nose.
Cause old people might get a heart attack.
Cause it's very expensive.
Cause it's useless for movies with no car chase, epic battles, action scenes in general.

what about tits?

but no, it's cuz the brain can't handle the difference between focus and convergence. read the article, it's pretty cool.

[tw2113]

Cameron can go fuck himself with the 100% 3D shit. It is nothing but a proverbial fancier suit when the old suit was just fine imho. 3D movies are like Liberace to me.

[GeneticKiss]

I don't mind 3D for movies that are supposed to be "intense", like action, sci-fi, or horror, but 3D comedies? 3D period dramas? Pointless.

[noisereductions]

Originally Posted by GeneticKiss

I don;t mind 3D for movies that are supposed to be "intense", like action, sci-fi, or horror, but 3D comedies? 3D period dramas? Pointless.

agreed.

MBV3D was a lot of fun. But why does everything need to be 3D.

[Derek]

Because people like the gimmick.

[tw2113]

Originally Posted by Derek

Because people like the gimmick.

And too often people prove themselves morons