Description image

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

12.14.12 @ 11:24PM Tags : , , ,

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:


  • 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.



We’re all here for the same reason: to better ourselves as writers, directors, cinematographers, producers, photographers... whatever our creative pursuit. Criticism is valuable as long as it is constructive, but personal attacks are grounds for deletion; you don't have to agree with us to learn something. We’re all here to help each other, so thank you for adding to the conversation!

Description image 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.

    • 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.

      • Jeff Akwante on 12.15.12 @ 10:45AM

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

    • 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!

  • 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.

  • turns out less IS more

    imagine that

  • 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.

  • 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.

    • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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 :)

    • Jeff Akwante on 12.15.12 @ 12:56PM

      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 :)

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

      • 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.

  • 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!

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Hi NFS Team,

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



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

      • 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.


  • 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.

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

  • 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.

    • 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…

  • 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.)

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

      • 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.

        • Thanks Peter for explaining it. Gabe, when I first heard about the 180 degree shutter angle, the first thing I thought of was that 180 degree rule, but it appears there are two rules with the same name.

          When I heard about the issues with the 48fps, the description reminded me of problems with low shutter speeds. The movement sounded similar to 24fps below 1/48. I haven’t seen the film yet, but does anyone know if 48fps at 1/96 is a more cinematic look than 48fps at 1/64?

          My understanding is that the film was shot in 1/64 to be able to more easily down convert to 24fps (if it was shot at 1/96, 24fps would be like the Hobbit in shell shock land). If 48fps at 1/96 is a significant improvement, I wonder if using beam splitters on a couple extra cameras to record in two different frame rates and shutter speeds would work (like those film makers that used a beam splitter and multiple cameras to make HDR video).

  • Went to see this in 48fps – 3D last night. I had to walk out on it. It looks like soap opera video on crack!

    I think a Football game would really benefit from this technology, but a world of magic? No way!

  • HFR and all it’s glory aside .. what I felt the HFR version did was pay homage to the enormous amount of sheer craft work that went in to making each scene. From makeup to art design – everybody had to up their game .. and that they did! We so easily diss the film because of the HFR debarkle – but go watch it again and take note of the amazing craft that went in to it. The detail – and attention to detail would leave a lot of us for shame. I know people who worked on this movie and they can stand proud of their work.

  • Have to second Brendan – the craft that went into this (storytelling aside) was staggering. Definite high water marks for art department, sound and CG, although I’d say that HFR rather interfered with that work than helped it.

    I’ve been interested in this for years, having followed Trumbull’s efforts for a long time. But having seen it, I have to say that it just looks exactly like interlaced video. There is no ‘enhanced’ detail or reality – Mike’s got it right, it just looks like a South Korean historical soap opera. 48FPS is NOT how the world looks – wave your hand in front of your face and find out how much motion blur there is. HFR is jarring, distracting and just plain freaky.

    For those interested in stereo filming, this is a great case study in what NOT to do – giving our audience massive eyestrain isn’t something they’ll thank you for. Stereo can add depth when properly used, but stuff shouldn’t be coming out of the screen at you so much that it takes a hour for your eyes to uncross.

    As a filmmaker and a movie buff I’m excited for stereoscopic to work…but so far, still waiting. HFR can hit file 13.

    • 48fps is not how the world looks? And 24fps is?

      I’d bet that the majority of film within 25 years will have a higher framerate than 24. 24fps is so ingrained with us as to what we know as ‘film’. Of course anything else will feel weird for some time. But if the majority of film you saw was 48fps, then a 24fps film would feel weird.

  • There is no way that HFR is going away, same with 3D. Those that want them to die will be waiting until… well… forever. I’m not saying it will be an eager or swift adoption. They will have their difficulties and growing pains, especially with HFR in the short term…. The Hobbit is surely getting a lot of negative feedback for HFR.

    But, I predict most of our children will be watching movies in the theatre in 3D at 120fps.

    Remember when people were adamant that digital would NEVER replace film?

    • With normal vision, there’s a good amount of motion blur – not as much as in 24fps (ie., 48), but we still see it, which is why I say it feels natural. To see no motion blur at all is jarring, at least to me and the people I’ve spoken to about it – both filmmakers and non. Growing up with 60hz interlaced video, I’m as accustomed to a higher frame rate as I am to 24fps movies, but one certainly looks more ‘lifelike’ than the other.

      Obviously, the human brain doesn’t process visual information in “frame rate”, but we can certainly talk about the aesthetics of HFR. Do you like the way it looks?

      Re: digital replacing film, dig is merely less expensive, and nearly all of my clients go for the price point as the highest consideration. But when it comes to image quality, film is still the gold standard – by miles. This year we saw Samsara, The Master and Batman III and we’re still having this debate? Bummer it’s prohibitively expensive. Anyway, it’s pointless to compare – they’re two separate mediums. Which is better for painting – oil or acrylic?

  • I saw the 3D High Frame Rate version here in Kansas City in the AMC ETX theater with Dolby Atmos. First off, the Dolby Atmos sound was truly enveloping and amazing! I counted over 30 speakers. Specifically 9 on each wall and the rest above me. It was so dark I couldn’t accurately count the ceiling speakers around the joists. The 3D seemed very smooth and was easy on the eyes. I noticed throughout the movie that quick character movement was sped-up and unnatural. I also noticed every stutter and camera rock from most panning shots. It just seemed that every little detail or error was vividly apparent. At 48 fps it was a real challenge for prop effects and the makeup was harder to hide. I liked the story and movie for the most part, but at the end of the movie I didn’t hear a single person saying how awesome it was. The only crowd reaction we had was when the Dolby Atmos logo and sound theme appeared in the beginning; you heard a lot of oohs and awes over that. I think most everyone was in shock about how different and awkward the HFR was. I think a few people will say they love it only because it’s new, but going forward I think the average person will be uncomfortable with and shy away from 48 fps.

  • If you are looking to buy a desktop PC for
    your home it is likely you will want it to perform a variety of tasks from basic things
    like sending emails and word processing to more complex tasks like
    downloading music and streaming video from the internet.
    with this special “Twiathlon” ticket, you are sure to be one of the first to
    see this epic saga continue unfolding. But Alfredo’s death has released him from this promise.