Peter Jackson is shooting The Hobbit at 48 frames per second

He will be the first to use it in a major motion picture

Peter Jackson has announced, via a post on his official Facebook page, that he will be shooting his adaptation of The Hobbit at the higher rate of 48 frames per second.

The usual rate is 24fps, and has been since its introduction to cinema in 1927. The Hobbit will be the first major motion picture in history to feature the upgrade

Jackson thinks, "after nine decades", it's time for a change.

In the post, he addressed the inevitable backlash from "film purists" by saying that audience will "get used to this new look very quickly" as it will bring about a "much more lifelife and comfortable viewing experience."

He also said that films will become "easier to watch, especially in 3-D", with audiences being able to sit through "two hours of footage without getting eyestrain".

Jackson went onto claim that the difference between 24 and 48 fps is "significant", likening the technological evolution to when "vinyl records were supplanted by digital CDs".

The Lord of the Rings director also thanked Warner Bros for their support in the advancement, before predicting over 10,000 screens would be capable of projecting 48fps by the time of The Hobbit's release.

Jackson, who won an Academy Award for his work on The Return of the King, took over the directing chair after Guillermo del Toro left. He had become frustrated with the constant production delays that had thwarted the project early on.

The Office's Martin Freeman has been announced to be playing Bilbo Baggins in the film, a role originally played by Sir Ian Holm in The Lord of the Rings trilogy, while Sir Ian McKellen and Andy Serkis will be reprising the characters of Gandalf and Gollum respectively.

Serkis will also act as Second Unit Director on the project.

The Hobbit will be split into two parts, with the first being released in December 2012.

 

Do you think 48fps will make a difference in your viewing pleasure? Let us know in the box below...

Comments

    • magicwings

      Apr 12th 2011, 20:49

      Won't it lose that "film" look?

      Alert a moderator

    • nkutzler

      Apr 12th 2011, 22:08

      I'm interested to see how the film will look with this change- but that isn't even the determining factor in Peter Jackon's movies. His will be characterised by an amazing ensemble cast working in interesting and real set pieces- all in New Zealand. Hey, it will always work out.

      Alert a moderator

    • nkutzler

      Apr 12th 2011, 22:08

      I'm interested to see how the film will look with this change- but that isn't even the determining factor in Peter Jackon's movies. His will be characterised by an amazing ensemble cast working in interesting and real set pieces- all in New Zealand. Hey, it will always work out.

      Alert a moderator

    • pancho

      Apr 13th 2011, 1:36

      Douglas Trumball had a system called "Showscan" which shot and projected film at 60 frames per second and the look was supposed to be like looking out a clear window. It never happened because it was too expensive to convert all the theaters. I predict it will be the same thing in that very few theaters will be able to show the film at this rate and the film will be converted back to 24 fps. Too bad, I would love to see The Hobbit like this.

      Alert a moderator

    • Agent69

      Apr 13th 2011, 1:52

      Loosing the "film" look is what I'm afraid of too.

      Alert a moderator

    • TeddyPasternak1

      Apr 13th 2011, 3:12

      So, the whole film will be in slow motion?

      Alert a moderator

    • Jawsphobia

      Apr 13th 2011, 3:17

      First, the columnist needs a proof-reader. Guessing "lifelife" means "life-like" and "went onto claim" means "went on to claim." As for the comparison to vinyl being replaced by CD, lets remember that the sound quality of a good record is still preferred and the music industry initially made a huge profit with the switchover, taking up less shelf space, less transpertation cost per unit, and at the same time jacking up the price because it was this "new format" and it may as well be a status symbol. Now they cry that music can be ripped from CDs. No sympathy here. As for movies being easier to watch in 48 frames per second "especially in 3D," firstly it's not the 24 frames per second that ever gives me an eye ache. It's either projection bulbs that are NEEDLESSLY put on a dimmer setting by theater projectionists despite experts like Ebert assuring them that no power or life is saved in the bulb by doing this and despite the reduction of quality. If exhibitors could be fined for non-compliance with cinematographer recommendations, the movie theater experience might last longer. Also, 3D as a gimmick should not be allowed to fish people in so much. It's all part of conditioning us to accept higher ticket prices. Jackson should be focused on trying to make sure we don't fall asleep looking at helicopter shots of grassy hills. Focus on story. I like Peter Jackson. He knows how to direct. But he is also a a con artist fixing something that is not broken. 24 frames per second is part of "film look." Now does he want film to look more like video? The flicker we generally can't even perceive due to persistence of vision is all part of the spell of movies. IMAX can be impressive, but even that isn't necessary. Also, your experience of the Hobbit is MOSTLY going to be holding out for the Extended Edition Hobbit DVDs with commentary tracks that will come out a year or so after the market is flooded with bare bones non-special non-commentary DVDs which come out a few months after the BIG DEAL, all or nothin' opening weekend and a decent run with the "gee isn't that a sharp image of Gollum" that lasts about ten seconds before a good story makes you forget whether it is in color or black and white. And "Andy Serkis did such a good job directing these second unit shots - I can hardly wait till he makes his own feature next week." It's all hype, and hype we shouldn't even care about. CGI rendering technitions should care about it, considering that everything high-def for Avatar made people crazy and now doubling the frame rate for The Hobbit will mean twice the workload for Weta Workshop and any other company they have to farm work out to in order to meet deadlines. Maybe it's good that it means more work, but it seems like the more frames per minute the less magic between the frames.

      Alert a moderator

    • Jawsphobia

      Apr 13th 2011, 3:18

      First, the columnist needs a proof-reader. Guessing "lifelife" means "life-like" and "went onto claim" means "went on to claim." As for the comparison to vinyl being replaced by CD, lets remember that the sound quality of a good record is still preferred and the music industry initially made a huge profit with the switchover, taking up less shelf space, less transpertation cost per unit, and at the same time jacking up the price because it was this "new format" and it may as well be a status symbol. Now they cry that music can be ripped from CDs. No sympathy here. As for movies being easier to watch in 48 frames per second "especially in 3D," firstly it's not the 24 frames per second that ever gives me an eye ache. It's either projection bulbs that are NEEDLESSLY put on a dimmer setting by theater projectionists despite experts like Ebert assuring them that no power or life is saved in the bulb by doing this and despite the reduction of quality. If exhibitors could be fined for non-compliance with cinematographer recommendations, the movie theater experience might last longer. Also, 3D as a gimmick should not be allowed to fish people in so much. It's all part of conditioning us to accept higher ticket prices. Jackson should be focused on trying to make sure we don't fall asleep looking at helicopter shots of grassy hills. Focus on story. I like Peter Jackson. He knows how to direct. But he is also a a con artist fixing something that is not broken. 24 frames per second is part of "film look." Now does he want film to look more like video? The flicker we generally can't even perceive due to persistence of vision is all part of the spell of movies. IMAX can be impressive, but even that isn't necessary. Also, your experience of the Hobbit is MOSTLY going to be holding out for the Extended Edition Hobbit DVDs with commentary tracks that will come out a year or so after the market is flooded with bare bones non-special non-commentary DVDs which come out a few months after the BIG DEAL, all or nothin' opening weekend and a decent run with the "gee isn't that a sharp image of Gollum" that lasts about ten seconds before a good story makes you forget whether it is in color or black and white. And "Andy Serkis did such a good job directing these second unit shots - I can hardly wait till he makes his own feature next week." It's all hype, and hype we shouldn't even care about. CGI rendering technitions should care about it, considering that everything high-def for Avatar made people crazy and now doubling the frame rate for The Hobbit will mean twice the workload for Weta Workshop and any other company they have to farm work out to in order to meet deadlines. Maybe it's good that it means more work, but it seems like the more frames per minute the less magic between the frames.

      Alert a moderator

    • blahblah

      Apr 13th 2011, 7:08

      or we could still be waiting for the travelling showman and his new fangled magic lantern show

      Alert a moderator

    • AshFox

      Apr 13th 2011, 10:54

      Jawsphobia can we see your column please? According to your comment here you also need a proof reader. And punctuation lessons. I completely agree with most of your points, and it's intelligent commentary, but you need to spend a bit less time putting others down and proselytising on comments board and a bit more time working on your own writing, properly.

      Alert a moderator

    • AshFox

      Apr 13th 2011, 12:07

      Jawsphobia can we see your column please? As judging solely from the above comment you need a proof-reader. And punctuation lessons. I agree with all you points; they're clearly intelligent and you know your stuff, but I think you need to spend less time putting others down and proselytising on a comments board and more time working on your own writing before commenting on other people's.

      Alert a moderator

    • SamaElPrime

      Apr 13th 2011, 17:10

      Huh, looks like what I thought is actually true! 24fps in 3D makes it look somehow unnatural, you can note this if you went to theaters to see The Legend Of The Guardians (Ga'Hoole). Zack Snyder is really known for his slo-mo usage, so if you saw it on a 3D theater you can really note a smooth 3D on this slo-mo effects. Also on how badly your eye catches on the chase scene of Avatar, with that fast camera movements and quick angle changes. If the movie had a higher framerate, you could maybe see it occurr more smoothly for the 3D effect. Let's see if this works out! Hope that the unstandard framrate doesn't limit the ammount of cinemas/countries showing the movie though (maybe they'll do a conversion to 24fps in those cases... kindda lame. But what can they do, right?...)

      Alert a moderator

    • Viletemptress

      Dec 21st 2011, 5:39

      @Jawsphobia Dear lord have you heard of the Enter key? No way I am reading a huge wall of text!

      Alert a moderator