@sam_stickland thanks for the link.

@jpbturbo "With the Hobbit Jackson shot at 1/64th of a second on a 270 degree shutter to split the difference if you will and get a bit more motion blur (and light.)" - http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2012/12/19/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-masterclass-in-why-hfr-fails-and-a-reaffirmation-of-what-makes-cinema-magical/

I came to Personal-view looking for a 48 fps hack... still searching / looking thru the site.

In the meantime, as regards this hfr gripe thread, here's 3 views on the matter by Wired, Movieline and one by Ted Schilowitz of RED: • movieline.com/2012/12/11/hobbit-joe-letteri-48-fps-3d/ • wired.com/underwire/2012/12/hobbit-movie-review-48-fps/ • 3dfocus.co.uk/3d-news-2/3d-film/be-open-minded-says-schilowitz-from-red-about-hfr-3d/11469

Does anybody know what shutter speed/angle was used on the hobbit?

I can't stand the motion interpolation on 120hz TV's. If I take my GH2 and record in 24p with 1/25 shutter it will look terrible, like video. 24p at 1/50 looks as it should.

Record in 60p at 1/60 and it looks like video. But if I record in 60p at 1/125 it looks OK, not the same as 24p but it doesn't look like the old Dr. Who episodes.

Actually for a while on Dr. Who the interiors looked terrible and the exteriors looked fine. Might have been using a slower shutter speed inside to get enough light on the sensor.

If The Hobbit was shot at 48p with a 1/96 shutter then they would have required twice the amount of light that a normal 24p shoot would require. Since The Hobbit was shot in 3D I'm guessing they were going for a deeper DOF which means they couldn't just shoot at a lower F-stop.

As a a mixer who's sat in the "locked" dub of the final print of xyz film and every other position between, trust me until you've made a "film" film you'll never believe the madness until its finally popping onto the Optical (or whatever next weeks format is!) it's really pub inspiring! (but fun) it's mental - but part of the job. One of the things you do learn is your "place" - politics - seen directors of some stature destroyed in the mix by the studio - crazy but hey job - so essentially you and your chosen mate could edit it for 9 months then Arnie fufkin (will!) could turn up and change it entirely - hey and he's boss - it's mad first time around and "of course" 20th lol

Original 2001 is one of my faves for last minute North was fooked as he essentially listened to not his score - and Zarathustra popped in - must say Anvil studios got fucked by it but still genius

Anvils tape is still at shAbby Road if you want me to try and blag it lol we could have a 2001 off ;p

TBH it's like 96k 24 bit audio - acquisition is just that - even 24 bit (music yes makes sense ) is irrelevant in TV with R128 and my fellow mixers 16 bit 48k still - if people are moaning about bit rates - actually spend some money on a location sound man ! Production wont - still after years of expensive post they still won't. Go to meetings pre filming - book a sound.....sound sooo much better ! Sadly I also think this is a byproduct of fast track production/directing - shit sound kills great camerawork - well recorded sound (easy) saves shit camerawork - dialogue dialogue dialogue - learn to buy the cos 11 rubber grommets (soundmans secret0 scratchless radio every day and don't piss the talent off - I'm rambling pissed - should start a course lol ;p soz night! = (Written asva a 5 year pole swinger on film location and mixer - it's easy!)

Aside from the fact that "old" tellys look immensely superior to whatever format you cared to throw at em domestically (one still in me kitchen ;p) 24 25 50 60 matters not, as operators, you have no choice - they really don't care/be arsed (unless it's cheaper!) it's all down from here pals - and no-ones dropping their rates! Sound is really at rock bottom - as in not gone up for 15 years even tho they're trying to get editors to mix ( a la "Only Way Is Essex" in the UK - at Evolutions that my online chum "mixes" but actually does a legal job lol) Offliners may start the audio scoff now but next is PA's cutting their own shit (which the BBC did years ago in radio) the end is shit - possibly not nigh AVID's next push is PT and Media Composer as same prog - with AAX plugs they're pushing for sub quality audio mixed in suite - hey ho !

If I watch 24p material for more than about 15 minutes, I start getting a splitting headache - especially with high contrast scenes in a dark environment. With 3D material, I get a headache in about 1 minute. :-(

MOST THEATERS NOT LIKELY TO RUN THE HOBBIT IN NEW FORMAT

Studio Briefing August 9, 2012

Warner Bros. may be so nervous about the mixed reception that The Hobbit received when it was shown to exhibitors in the 48-frame-per-second format last April that it has decided to screen it in only a limited number of theaters at that frame rate when it is released in December. Daily Variety, which cited a source familiar with Warner’s release plans, is reporting that the movie may not even be shown in that format in all major cities. The studio’s concerns were evident last month when a preview real of the movie was shown at San Diego’s Comic-Con at the normal 24 frames per second. At the time director Peter Jackson said during a panel discussion that the best way to experience the 48 FPS format is by watching the entire movie in it, not just a brief reel of excerpts. Apparently the studio plans to test the format slowly with The Hobbit trilogy — a few theaters for the first movie, a few more for the second, and many more for the third.

http://www.studiobriefing.net/2012/08/most-theaters-not-likely-to-run-the-hobbit-in-new-format/

I just watched the Game of Thrones season finale a few weeks ago at someones house that had motion-interpolation turned on. About 8/10 of us were complaining that it looked like it was shot on an iphone. So in my informal research, for narrative content, I've seen WAY more people that hate it.

I do agree it looks great for sports and "live" content though.

When we first got our new Samsung TV we loved it - and we did what I guess anyone does when they get a new TV, which is to flick around the channels and watch evertything and congratulate ourselves on what a wonderful purchase we'd made. Later that evening we came across something that seemed really expensively done, but the camera work was really bad - sort of "soap opera" ish. We discovered it was a respected film (not one I knew) and the horrible effect was caused by the TV doing motion interpolation. It looked so terrible even the children commented on it! Nice crane moves were turned into a sort of low-budget, cheesy, video version. It looked like parts of the move were speeded-up. After poking around in the menus and experimenting, we disabled the motion interpolation "feature". Movies now look like they are meant to, and so does TV studio / sports broadcasting. So part of the horrible effects we see could well be some TV that's been set up to look good on sports but not movies.

I think our preferences for particular frame rates has a lot to do with our experiences. For example, for as long as I can remember I have been fascinated by video, and in particular, tv broadcasting, and I really hated 24p - particularly when pictures were deliberately (as I thought) downgraded to give that progressive look. I mean, you can have 50 interlaced pictures a second, why deliberately make it half as good? But having played with shooting and editing in 24p I now totally agree that it gives a certain "look" which we associate with "the movies". Of course, that may change, and probably will, as standards change.

But I also wanted to comment on what @shian wrote about 24 being a "sweet spot", because it related to other things with "24" as part of the measurement. I liked that. The units @crunchy uses above are merely scientific ways of pinning down these old measurements using a current system that is more universally agreed. But we shouldn't make fun of the old hours / days / miles / feet / inches. They have a very, very long history - some are adaptations of extremely old, "folk" units, which are based on things related to parts of our bodies or to the things we experience happening, so to me they're more "human" somehow, if that makes sense. These old units arose out of our need to make sense of the world and work with others; it just happens that they don't quite work as precisely as modern scientific definitions so we tend to use them less and less. For example, in our current house-building project I talk in metres and millimetres but in everyday life I use miles, inches, gallons etc - somehow they seem to be better units for the average everyday things you talk about. I know that probably sounds a bit weird.

I like 24p for storytelling because I think people forget when you do get into 60p ect. It does get very real looking and well it looks "fake" because you are actually shooting something that isn't real. It is an "act" which is imitation or fake real life which the camera captures correctly as fake. 60p sports looks awesome. 24p to storytelling is like a slight soft effects filter to shoot a hot model, you don't want to see every skin pore or blemish! Anyway just my opinion, you should shoot what you like.

@thepalalias "The latter part of what you are talking about sounds like the "Uncanny Valley". Anyone remember the optimism about realistic computer animated characters before the film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within's financial failure? It was one of two films that shaped the face of computer animation in movie to this day."

Yes, nice job pointing that out. I think it's exactly the same thing happening as the uncanny valley. If something just "represents" reality, but a clear distinction can be made... we can enjoy it. If something gets too close though, our brains start spazing out and the illusion is lost. The film-motion of 24fps helps keep the movie world separate and allows us to interpret what we're watching as a story... and NOT a real event unfolding. Real life events just don't unfold as film events do. We don't have personal soundtracks, scores, and music cues. Rooms don't adjust their lighting to reflect the mood we're in. We don't just skip over certain days events and leave conversations after the emotional apex. Films just aren't supposed to be real!

Like when I saw Avatar in 3D. Sure it was a cool effect. But my brain knew all along that people's heads are not 30feet tall in real life. So the 3D cinematography trying to make the experience more realistic was just a lost cause. Even if Avatar 2 is 120fps and perfect 3D... it still won't work in theaters... because people aren't that big! Being more life-like just makes it less realistic!!! It doesn't work!

Most people claim not to notice the 120hz and yet the end up buying the new TVs anyway. Behold the power of marketing