We've relaunched as a full community! Get the scoop:

December 14, 2012

'The Hobbit' Video Blog #10: The Premiere, and Where You Can See the Movie in 48FPS

So The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey has officially opened, and we've already got some reactions from around the globe. If you've been waiting for the last video blog that was promised at the end of the one we shared here, it has finally appeared today. The video shows the chaos that went into the New Zealand premiere and the finishing of the film up until the last possible moments. Since the film was shot in 3D at 48fps on the RED EPIC, that's the way the movie was intended to be seen, so if you're wondering where you can see it that way, a frequently updated list has been put together to let you know where the film is playing in all its high frame rate glory.

First, here's video blog #10:

There is a great line near the end about the movie arriving on a flash drive with minutes to spare, and in reality, we aren't too far from that being the case for every major movie. While flash drives haven't quite caught up to that much storage space, new compression methods like the new one from RED could actually fit an entire 4K feature film on a much smaller drive than the traditional DCPs of most films. Either way, it's amazing that things can still be changed last minute the way they are since they aren't really striking 35mm film prints anymore.

If you're wondering where you can see The Hobbit in 3D at 48fps, a list has been put together to help you out. Here is California and New York:

California

  • Alhambra: Alhambra Renaissance Stadium 14 & IMAX
  • Aliso Viejo: Edwards Aliso Viejo Stadium 20 & IMAX
  • Bakersfield: Bakersfield Stadium 14
  • Bakersfield: Maya Cinemas
  • Baldwin Hills: Rave Baldwin Hills 15
  • Brea: Brea Stadium East 12
  • Burbank: AMC Burbank 16 with IMAX and ETX (Dolby ATMOS)
  • Chatsworth: Winnetka All Stadium 21
  • Chino Hills: Harkins Chino Hills 18
  • Corte Madera: Cinemark Century Cinema
  • Daly City: Cinemark Century 20 Daly City & XD
  • Dublin: Regal Hacienda Crossings Stadium 20 & IMAX
  • El Cajon: Parkway Plaza Stadium 18 & IMAX
  • El Segundo: Arclight Beach Cities
  • Emeryville: AMC Bay Street 16
  • Fairfield: Fairfield Stadium 16 & IMAX
  • Folsom: Palladio 16 Cinemas
  • Foothill Ranch: Foothill Towne Center Stadium 22
  • Fremont: Century at Pacific Commons & XD (Dolby ATMOS)
  • Fresno: Fresno Stadium 22 & IMAX
  • Glendale: Pacific Theatres Glendale 18
  • Hollywood: Grauman’s Chinese theater
  • Huntington Beach: Huntington Beach Bella Terra 20 + XD
  • Huntington Beach: Century Huntington & XD
  • Irvine: Irvine Spectrum 21 IMAX & RPX
  • La Jolla: Arclight cinema (Dolby ATMOS)
  • Lancaster: Cinemark 22 & IMAX
  • Long Beach: Long Beach Stadium 26 & IMAX
  • Los Angeles: AMC Century City 15 with IMAX and ETX (Dolby ATMOS)
  • Los Angeles: AMC Del Amo 18 & IMAX
  • Los Angeles: AMC Ontario Mills 30 (Dolby ATMOS)
  • Los Angeles: AMC Orange 30
  • Los Angeles: AMC Promenade 16
  • Los Angeles: AMC Puente Hills 20
  • Los Angeles: AMC Rolling Hills 20
  • Los Angeles: AMC Santa Anita 16
  • Los Angeles: AMC South Bay 16
  • Los Angeles: LA Live Stadium 14
  • Los Angeles: Grove Stadium 14
  • Los Angeles: The Landmark
  • Los Angeles: Universal Citywalk Stadium 19
  • Los Angeles: Rave 18
  • Milpitas: Century 20 Great Mall & XD
  • Monterey: Monterey 13
  • Napa: Century Napa Valley
  • Ontario: Ontario Palace Stadium 22 & IMAX
  • Orange: Century Stadium 25 & XD
  • Oxnard: Century RiverPark 16 & XD
  • Pasadena, California: Arclight cinema
  • Pleasant Hill: Century 21 + XD
  • Pleasant Hill: CinéArts at Pleasant Hill
  • Rancho Mirage: Century @ The River & XD
  • Redding: Cinemark Redding 14 & XD
  • Redlands: Redlands 14
  • Redondo Beach: Galleria South Bay 16
  • Redwood City: Redwood Downtown 20 & XD
  • Rocklin: Blue Oaks Century Theatres & XD
  • Sacramento: Century Stadium 14
  • Sacramento: Century 16 Greenback Lane & XD
  • Sacramento: Laguna Village 12
  • Sacramento: Natomas Marketplace Stadium 16
  • San Bernardino: San Bernardino Stadium 14 & RPX
  • San Bruno: Cinemark Century at Tanforan & XD
  • San Diego: AMC Mission Valley 20
  • San Diego: AMC Plaza Bonita 14 (Dolby ATMOS)
  • San Diego: Edwards Mira Mesa Stadium 18 & IMAX
  • San Diego: Horton Plaza 14
  • San Francisco: AMC Cupertino Square 16
  • San Francisco: AMC Eastridge 15
  • San Francisco: AMC Metreon 16 (Dolby ATMOS)
  • San Francisco: AMC Van Ness 14 (Dolby ATMOS)
  • San Jose: Century 20 Oakridge & XD
  • San Jose: East Ridge Mall 15 with IMAX
  • San Luis Obispo: Fremont Theater
  • San Marcos: San Marcos Stadium 18
  • Santa Barbara: Arlington Theater
  • Santa Clara: AMC Mercado 20 & IMAX
  • Santa Clarita: Valencia Stadium 12 & IMAX
  • Santa Monica: AMC Santa Monica 7
  • Santa Rosa: Roxy Stadium 14
  • Sherman Oaks, California: Arclight cinema (Dolby ATMOS)
  • South Gate: South Gate Stadium 20 & IMAX
  • Temecula: Temecula Stadium 15 & IMAX
  • Thousand Oaks: Muvico Thousand Oaks 14
  • Union City: Cinemark Century 25 Union Landing & XD
  • Victorville: Cinemark 16 Victorville & XD
  • Walnut Creek: Walnut Creek 14 & XD
  • West Covina: West Covina Stadium 18
  • Westwood: Village 1

New York

  • Albany: Colonie Center Stadium 13
  • Albany: Crossgates Stadium 18 & IMAX
  • Brooklyn: Court Street Stadium 12 & RPX
  • Brooklyn: Sheepshead Bay Stadium 14 & IMAX
  • Clifton Park: Clifton Park Stadium 10 & RPX
  • Deer Park: Deer Park Stadium 16 & IMAX
  • Glendale: Atlas Park Stadium 8
  • Holtsville: Island 16 Cinema de Lux
  • Long Island City: Kaufman Astoria Stadium 14
  • New Rochelle: New Roc Stadium 18 & IMAX
  • New York: AMC 34th St. 14 with IMAX
  • New York: AMC Bay Plaza 13
  • New York: AMC Kips Bay 15
  • New York: AMC Stony Brook 17
  • New York: AMC Loews Lincoln Square 13
  • New York: AMC Loews Village 7
  • New York: E-walk Stadium 13 & RPX
  • Rochester: Henrietta 18
  • Staten Island: Staten Island Stadium 16 & RPX
  • Syracuse: Carousel Mall 17
  • Westbury: Westbury Stadium 12 & IMAX
  • West Nyack: AMC Palisades 21
  • Williamsville: Transit Center Stadium 18 + IMAX
  • White Plains: City Center 15 Cinema de Lux
  • White Stone: College Point Multiplex

The full list on the main site for the movie is actually not updated as frequently as this list, so there's a much better chance this is going to be accurate. I'm sure many of you will have your reactions about what the film looks like, so if you want to chime in on your feelings about 48fps, please feel free to do so in the comments.

Links:

Your Comment

59 Comments

Just got home from seeing it in 3D HFR. I'm not a huge fan of 3D but I wanted to give Mr. Jackson's preference a chance. In combination with 3D, the picture is strikingly real. It took me 20 to 30 minutes to get use to it. And when I say "use to it" - I was still completely aware of the 48fps throughout the whole film but I just accepted it. I've seen this response floating around and I felt the same, it was like watching a stage play. Actors on a stage, only a feet away from you, acting in a story. Hyperrealism.

And here lies the problem for me. The Hobbit is a fantasy story. And I had a hard time getting completely lost in the fantasy when it was presented so true to life.

I know I'm use to 24fps. It's been around for nearly 100 years. I don't dislike 48fps. I'm sure I could get completely "use to it" if it's all I ever watched. But, I never had a problem with 24fps. It is blurry. Slower. Dreamy. Like a story in your mind.

December 14, 2012

0
Reply

24 fps is dead for me in case of 3D movies. I rather stick with 2D than go watch strobing blurry slideshow of a movie in 3D ever again.

December 15, 2012

0
Reply
Natt

I hate 30FPS+ and 3D. I really dislike how RED is trying to "trailblaze" the 48FPS playback.

December 15, 2012

0
Reply
Jeff Akwante

Film is dead, or dying quickly. 48 frame 3d did one thing for me: it did not give me a headache. I loved the Hobbit in 3d. It felt so real that It was like I was in middle earth myself. Jackson is a pioneer! The Hobbit did not look like film, but why should it? It did not look like video. It look like something I have never seen before. It was a total new experience. It is hard for some viewers to except change, and give up old ways of thinking. For most viewers like my wife and kids they couldn't care less if it was shot at 48 frames on 4k, or 2k, on film or on dslrs. All they care about is the story, and the Hobbit was a winner for them. For me the Hobbit in 3d felt like taking part in an epic stage play, this was not a film experience. However, The incredible thing is on that stage a whole magical universe, with sweeping vistas, and emmense kingdoms were created. I'm going to see the Hobbit again. 48 frames is here to stay. At least I hope so!

December 21, 2012

0
Reply

Saw it. I'd be surprised to see anyone else take it up as a format.
The 3D was very mild.

It also looked very odd/terrible against the Star Trek: Into Darkness excerpt that preceded it, which looked far better.

As for the film, I left 30 minutes in.

December 15, 2012

0
Reply
marklondon

Why didn't you just send Peter Jackson a personal check for $15. Would have saved you 30 minutes.

December 15, 2012

0
Reply

Actually $17+tax. Plus $3 to park. Went to see the HFR tech. I didn't feel ripped-off. I also recommend the 'Oblivion' trailer in IMAX 3D. Stopped and saw the Sony 4K TV as well.

December 15, 2012

0
Reply
marklondon

Oooh how was it?!

December 15, 2012

0
Reply

Thus missing all the good parts.

December 15, 2012

0
Reply
Daniil

Why you even went watching it in the first place if you left 30 minutes in, you disrespectful little troll.

December 15, 2012

0
Reply
Natt

Why is he a troll? Is someone a troll when he doesn`t like the burger he paid for and throws the rest away? Would it be better if he got his money back? Or are you just a little whiner because someone just didn`t like the worlds most overrated director`s movie?

December 15, 2012

0
Reply
Mariano

Worlds most over rated director. That's priceless. LMAO

December 15, 2012

0
Reply

Look how easy it is to entertain retards - I just need to tell PJ is overrated and they "LMAO"

December 15, 2012

0
Reply
Mariano

Careful, they get VERY upset when you dont agree with them.

December 15, 2012

0
Reply

Try doing that with Nolan, and see if you survive - LoL.

December 15, 2012

0
Reply
moebius22

:D :D :D :D :D

December 15, 2012

0
Reply
Guto Novo

You'd be surprised if a technological advancement takes place? I'm sick of action being unreadable. What comes next is the ability to change the frame rate on the fly to suit the scenario. Technology moves forward inevitably.

December 15, 2012

0
Reply
Brett

turns out less IS more

imagine that

December 15, 2012

0
Reply
*_*

When the movie first came on, I thought, "Crap, this isn't going to look as good as I expected."
I was very nervous, but the movie won me over. I fell for the visual style completely, it was the opposite of distracting to me; I was very captivated by it all. There was no 'getting used to it', more like 'getting taken by it.' The effects, including the CGI, looked just incredible in 48 frames, especially Gollum. It could have been the combination with the 3D(which I am not usually a fan of), but everything was so clear and vivid, it didn't seem hyper-realistic, it just seemed magical and larger than life.

I am looking forward to seeing more movies in 48 FPS, but I have a feeling that nothing will match The Hobbit, if only for the way it showcases its effects. I am infinitely happy I didn't see it in 24 FPS, because I can't imagine missing the extra frames in some of the shots. I really had no idea that such simple shots could be so improved by the frame rate. So for anyone sitting on the fence about the whole frame rate thing, I say give 48 FPS a try. You might be really surprised by how much you enjoy it.

December 15, 2012

0
Reply
Nikaya

Yeah Gollum! Certainly a highlight of this film.

December 15, 2012

0
Reply
Max

Among other things, I hear Jackson decided to go full FX this time around in regards to the monsters, which sums up what I think about 48fps.

48 fps: sacrificing visual aesthetic for technology.

December 15, 2012

0
Reply
moebius22

If those monsters were not mostly practical effects, then my eye is easily tricked. Unless you are referring to the bigger monsters, those were CGI. Great CGI I thought, though, and that's coming from somebody who generally dislikes CGI.

December 15, 2012

0
Reply
Nikaya

Also the beards looked hyper-realistic! Good on the beard mo-cap team!

December 15, 2012

0
Reply
Tyler

Hahaha, they did a fine job indeed!

December 16, 2012

0
Reply

The pale orc looked awful to me, "Azog" or something...

I'm a huge fan of PJ, and I dug the movie, but I thought some of the special effects reached to far

December 15, 2012

0
Reply
aaron G

Haha, I was almost a 'disrespectful little troll'. Thanks for that 'observation' Natt. Seriously though, found myself totally distracted from the story. A failed visual experiment for Mr. Jackson, especially compared to visual mastery of Lord Of The Rings. And yes, watched the 48fps, HFR, 3D version. So disappointed.

December 15, 2012

0
Reply
Hal

The next 48fps +4K movie will be the next Hobbit, do you know why? rendering 96 frames in 4K per second of movie = Post production nightmare + expensive as hell = most of the audience dont give a hack and probably dont see the difference between 4k and 2k or else they are side by side.

December 15, 2012

0
Reply
Marcus

Ohh I forgot, this might be a good format for theme parks just like the King Kong ride.

December 15, 2012

0
Reply
Marcus

The Hobbit was mastered in 2k.

December 15, 2012

0
Reply
Gabe

Yes sorry, you are right, only the trailer they did in 4K, still 96 frames per second of movie, hell of a renderfarm you gotta have along with software licenses.

December 15, 2012

0
Reply
Marcus

Just saw it. Hated it terribly (the look of 48fps). But, I do appreciate the fact that boundaries were being pushed, and shows some people are willing to experiment. I appreciate that.

But who knows? Maybe if I got used to 48fps for the next 5 years, I would start to see it as normal.

Still attached to that magical 24 at the present I surmise :)

December 15, 2012

0
Reply

I don't get why anyone would want to condition them selves to get used to 48FPS, 24FPS is the "cinema feel" why change it to a "documentary feel"?

I know this isn't what you are suggesting, just throwing it out there :)

December 15, 2012

0
Reply
Jeff Akwante

Those associations are arbitrary, but the objective benefits / artefacts of each are not.

December 15, 2012

0
Reply
Brett

Actually, documentaries are exactly what I was thinking this could be paired with -- Once we get to the point of not having to carry around something with the appearance of medusa's engine design to make the thing function, with a revamping of post production -- yeah, I could see use for it.

But for fantasy? No way. It's like putting blemishes on a cartoon character. Brad Bird had it right when he said that overstepping a cartoon world by adding in facial imperfections and blemishes (shrek and many others since then) just doesn't work. In any given story, everything from characters to story, environemnt... it all has to match. 48 fps does not match the surreal story, characters, or environment that PJ created for the film. and that's where my comment about documentaries perhaps matching this format comes in.

Also +1 to the idea posted of an amusement park attraction.

December 16, 2012

0
Reply
Nate

I could see that for documentaries now that you mention it. As long as it does require a rig the size of a car lol.

3d docs!! WOOO!!

December 17, 2012

0
Reply

I went and saw the HFR version, and enjoyed it. It clears up the 3D tremendously, the eye strain is much lower, and the vivacity of the image is astounding. I do truly believe that the large blockbuster $100 million plus films that do 3D will benefit from the 48fps. Not all films have to follow this, but it does help for people who want to see 3D and have motion sickness. My wife doesn't like 3D for that fact, but she enjoyed it this time, because it was easier on her eyes. Avatar 2-infinity will benefit, and maybe the upcoming Avengers, or even the large animated films.

As an independent filmmaker, of course I'll stick to 24fps, and not shoot 3D, but for the films I want to see in 3D, 48fps all the way!

December 15, 2012

0
Reply
Mason

This film in 3D with the higher frame rate was fricking unbelievable. I find long 3D films tiresome generally, this is the best one I've seen so far, especially the CGI creatures like Gollum, the goblin-king guy with the floppy chin, the trolls. Eventually you'll see that this film is ahead of its time. And by the way, Martin is 10 times the hobbit Elijah is, he was fantastic.

December 15, 2012

0
Reply
Max

Gonna try to catch it again today on 3D imax

December 15, 2012

0
Reply
Max

I liked the look of the film and the 48fps 3d didn't bother me at all.
But what I didn't like was the story (or how it was told) and the dialogue.

December 15, 2012

0
Reply
gerald

Seems everyone hates the 48fps. I saw it in 3D 24fps. It looked just like the original trilogy to me. I won't see the others in 3D, though. I've seen probably 20 3D movies in the theater and it's just not something that makes the story better. By the 2nd half of any movie, you totally get used to the 3D and thus forget about it. Why the hell do I keep buying the 3D versions?
That being said, what is everyone's deal about bashing The Hobbit. It's a solid flick. In my opinion, just like the other trilogy, but what did you expect? I personally think it may have had a little too much action, but that is a rare complaint in a film. If this had been a 4th fourth film of LOTR made back in the early 2000's, no one would complain. It's a good movie. Just see it in 2D 24fps and have fun. Don't get crazy anal critical and pick it apart. It's just entertainment for god's sake.

December 15, 2012

0
Reply

Hi NFS Team,

Is there a way to report posts on NFS? Been around for a while, but never tried before.

Best

Lliam

December 16, 2012

0
Reply

There isn't any way to do that unfortunately, but we're working on it.

December 16, 2012

0
Reply
avatar
Joe Marine
Editor-at-Large
Shooter/Writer/Director
195

Ok, thanks for getting back to me Joe. Good to know it's in the pipeline. Block comments from select users would be great too.

Best
Lliam

December 17, 2012

0
Reply

i saw it in glorious 2d, 24fps and it was superb. like most people i had alot of reservations over it- splitting the book into 3, the lighter subject matter etc but it was superb.

December 16, 2012

0
Reply
andy

I loved 3D 48 FPS, and so did everyone in the theatre I was in

December 16, 2012

0
Reply
carlos

As much as people are whining about the "look" of 48 fps, that's the way this particular movie was intended to be shown at. Not every movie in the future will adopt 48fps, so don't worry...

Since I'm poor, I watched the movie in 2D at 24fps, and how I wish it was 48 (not 3D, however). All of the epic panning shots were completely blurry because, to show at 24fps, they simply took out every other frame. Unless the image is still, you can't see it. It's not bad-looking -- it's actually unwatchable.

December 16, 2012

0
Reply

yep. There was some pretty bad skipping with the wide panning shots, glad I'm not the only one who has noticed (at 24fps). Also all the cg overlay shots were looking pretty noisy, especially in the blacks...

December 16, 2012

0
Reply
Nate

Question: Does anybody think possibly the complaints may be from the way the 48fps was shot. I believe the shutter was 1/64 of a second, which violates the 180 degree shutter angle rule. Could 1/96 made the film look better, or does all that change above 30fps? (They shot at 1/64 so the footage could be converted to 24fps without the staccato look.)

December 17, 2012

0
Reply
Emmar

There's no rule regarding shutter angle. (Are you getting confused with the 180 degree rule regarding shot/reverse shots?)

December 17, 2012

0
Reply
Gabe

Actually, there is a rule regarding shutter angle, Emmar is correct. It refers to the rotary discs used in film cameras. 180º means the circular shutter is half solid, half open, and you get an exposure time of something close to 1/48 sec - 1/50 sec. That is the "standard" exposure time for 24fps, and the general rule is to double the framerate you shoot at in order to get that look. So shooting at 30fps, you want a 1/60 sec exposure, etc. On those same cameras, you would change the angel of the open portion of the disc, thus changing how long the exposure was. If you deviate from the standard "180º @ 24fps" look, you get either dreamy-smooth, softer images; or with a shorter exposure, clearer, but more staccato action - the "Private Ryan" look.

December 17, 2012

0
Reply
Peter

Pages