McGee's Movie Moments: Let's talk about frame rates
I have been waiting for years
and years for Peter Jackson to
make his grand return to Middle
Earth in the telling of The Hobbit.
As I'm sure you all know, my long
wait was finally, partially, over just
a few short weeks ago with the
release of The Hobbit: An
Unexpected Journey. Honestly,
I'm disappointed.
The story was great, particularly the way they used background information from other works by Tolkien to round out the story and explain some details. I couldn't be happier that Bret McKenzie is back as Figwit. Each moment with the dragon was absolute perfection. So what's the problem? It all comes down to the frame rate.
Movies are shot and played back at a rate of 24 frames per second. That is what our eyes are used to processing when watching films on the big screen. Peter Jackson got a little too ambitious with this one, though, because he decided to film The Hobbit in 48 frames per second. Sounds great, right? Twice as much to see. Twice as much to experience.
Here's the problem with that. Forty-eight frames per second brings the term "high definition" to a whole new level. Everything shown on screen looks incredibly realistic to the point of feeling like you are actually standing there in the Lonely Mountain along with Smaug himself. That all sounds good, right? Not exactly. When you can see each and every detail as it actually is, you can tell when a set is a set on a backlot of an Auckland studio. You can also tell that those giant, ancient stone carvings are actually made of painted Styrofoam. In this same vein, 48 frames per second absolutely kills the CGI work, making even Gollum look cheesy and fake.
The other problem that I had with the frame rate is that since our eyes are only used to seeing 24 frames per second there is a period at the beginning of the film, perhaps 10 to 20 minutes, depending on your eyes, where everything looks like it's happening in fast motion. Until your eyes can adjust, the speed looks distorted.
I wanted to love The Hobbit, but I just couldn't. The increased frame rate came at simply too high a cost and I sincerely hope that this new trend fails to catch on in Hollywood.
The story was great, particularly the way they used background information from other works by Tolkien to round out the story and explain some details. I couldn't be happier that Bret McKenzie is back as Figwit. Each moment with the dragon was absolute perfection. So what's the problem? It all comes down to the frame rate.
Movies are shot and played back at a rate of 24 frames per second. That is what our eyes are used to processing when watching films on the big screen. Peter Jackson got a little too ambitious with this one, though, because he decided to film The Hobbit in 48 frames per second. Sounds great, right? Twice as much to see. Twice as much to experience.
Here's the problem with that. Forty-eight frames per second brings the term "high definition" to a whole new level. Everything shown on screen looks incredibly realistic to the point of feeling like you are actually standing there in the Lonely Mountain along with Smaug himself. That all sounds good, right? Not exactly. When you can see each and every detail as it actually is, you can tell when a set is a set on a backlot of an Auckland studio. You can also tell that those giant, ancient stone carvings are actually made of painted Styrofoam. In this same vein, 48 frames per second absolutely kills the CGI work, making even Gollum look cheesy and fake.
The other problem that I had with the frame rate is that since our eyes are only used to seeing 24 frames per second there is a period at the beginning of the film, perhaps 10 to 20 minutes, depending on your eyes, where everything looks like it's happening in fast motion. Until your eyes can adjust, the speed looks distorted.
I wanted to love The Hobbit, but I just couldn't. The increased frame rate came at simply too high a cost and I sincerely hope that this new trend fails to catch on in Hollywood.
