The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is filming at 48 frames per second in 3D. But is this a good thing or a bad thing?
At CinemaCon in Las Vegas, Warner Bros showed about 10 minutes of footage from the film in 3D and at 48 fps. But even if it is the most anticipated movie of the year, IGN doesn't think it looks that good simply because of the framerate. The site said the footage looked like "an old Doctor Who episode, or a videotaped BBC TV production."
Shooting at a higher frame-rate is intended look like live television or hi-def video and make the movie look a little more realistic and give the impression that you are part of the film. Unfortunately IGN and a number of other journalists feel that "it didn't look particularly good."
The problem with the higher framerate is that while colors are vivid and bright, and there is a very crisp look to the film, it's blatantly clear that it's film and the movie loses its aesthetic feel. Dark scenes were said to be difficult to see and camera panning or quick movement was "unsettling."
24 fps is the minimum rate for the human eye not noticing a moving picture. According to the guys at IGN, the "undeniable 'reality,'" makes every wig, beard, and CG creature very noticeable.
While the actual look of the footage may not have been appealing to some, they did say the scenes shown were actually good. Bilbo and Gollum meet up in the footage that was shown and the two play a game of riddles. In another scene Legolas and Frodo are briefly shown along with Gandald the Grey, Redagast the Brown, and the dwarves led by Thorin Oakenshield
Peter Jackson gave an intro video before the footage and stressed that it was unfinished. There was still a good amount of greenscreen in the scenes that were shown. I hate to think that it really did look "cheap, like a videotaped or live TV version of Lord of the Rings," but until we see a trailer in 48fps, we can only take their word for it.
