The Hobbit, 48fps, and the Broadening of the Soap Opera Effect

Dec 19

Written by: Jason Bovberg
12/19/2012 1:14 PM  RssIcon

Peter Jackson’s first film in his Hobbit trilogy—An Unexpected Journey—debuted in theaters last week, and despite huge earnings already, it’s a film that has been immersed in controversy—and one of those controversies relates directly to a certain home-theater debate that has reared its head over the past couple years. No, I’m not talking about the bewildering decision to split the story of The Hobbit into not two but three separate films (although that makes me roll my eyes). I’m talking about the decision to film the trilogy at 48 frames per second (fps) rather than the industry-standard 24fps, essentially bringing the dreaded “soap opera effect” to the big screen—at least, on 450 screens nationwide.
I wrote about the soap opera effect in “How to Avoid the ‘Soap Opera Effect’ on Your HDTV … Or Do You Want to Avoid It?” The point of that article is that many of today’s HDTVs ship with a default “smooth motion” or “real cinema” interpolation setting that makes 24fps film look more like 60fps video. For many home-theater cinephiles, this effect can produce an image that looks fake. Sets and props look unrealistic, special effects (especially CGI) are unconvincing, even acting seems like “actors on a stage.”

Since I wrote that article, the soap opera effect has become more widespread, with more and more TVs shipping with the default “smooth motion” setting enabled. And more and more people simply accept the setting—or worse, gradually consider it to be the new HD norm. In addition to all those home experiences, for the first time in a high-profile blockbuster, high-frame-rate digital video has entered commercial theaters. I have to consider that the higher frame rate is a viewing experience that today’s audiences actually want!

Peter Jackson himself, in a recent interview, supported this theory. In “Peter Jackson, ‘The Hobbit’ Director, On Returning To Middle-Earth & The Polarizing 48 FPS Format,” the director says: “[To me, it’s] the fact that the younger audience is embracing it. It's just a few old fogeys like us who aren't quite sure of it. [If] the technology exists, why should we as an industry say that we achieved perfection in 1927? Why should we sit back on our haunches and laurels and say, ‘We got it right in 1927’? What are we talking about? The next 100 years? The next 200 years? That's what films have to be? We shouldn't be doing that.”

He almost got me agreeing with him! Obviously, I’m all in favor of technological advances in film itself, in the exhibition experience, and in the home theater experience. And in theory, a higher frame rate would seem to offer a leap ahead in image quality. In some senses, it does. It’s certainly a sharper image, and you could even argue that it’s more realistic. But I would take the counter-argument: that it makes the image look unreal—disturbingly artificial—so close to stark reality that it enters an uncanny valley in the same way that some startlingly realistic CG animation (such as Robert Zemeckis’ work on The Polar Express, or the 2001 experiment Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within) crosses the line from a representation of reality into the realm of creepy unreality. To my friends and me, all of us film lovers, the effect remains ugly, annoying, and cheap. It makes the film look flat, taking away any sense of depth, and no matter how many times I try to immerse myself in the effect, I can’t help but be distracted by it.

"Distracting" seems to be the early word from many filmgoers who have seen the 48fps Hobbit film. On message boards and forums across the Internet, I’m seeing most people voicing strong objections to the “artificial” effect of the higher frame rate. But I’m also seeing a disconcerting number saying that they don’t mind it—the equivalent of a virtual shrug, as if to say, “Well, if this is the way films are going to look from now on, sure, whatever. My TV looks like this, so I guess it makes sense to have it in theaters, too.”

For me, the clearest analogy to this soap opera effect is to compare a work of painted art with a photograph. It’s the difference between a representation of reality and actual reality. By finally embracing all the technological capabilities of HD video, we’re ripping away the last defining characteristics of film. Through digital evolution we’ve eliminated film grain, and with high-def discs we’ve made our home video experience match that of large-scale exhibition in theaters (in the correct aspect ratio, with fine detail, with brilliant sound), but now we’re to a point where technology is exceeding the experience of film that we’ve always known.

We’re not just perfecting the experience; we’re altering it. The veil will be lifted: we’ll no longer see the art from a perspective removed; we’ll see it stark and real, warts and all.

There are several loud champions of high frame rates out there in the media. One of them is a favorite film blogger—Jeffrey Wells of Hollywood Elsewhere. (See his recent blog post, “So … New.”) I can appreciate his point of view, but I can’t agree with it. I’ve seen too many family members settling for their TVs’ default smooth-motion settings; I’ve seen too many people looking at artificially cranked displays at Best Buy, at first confused and then oddly impressed by the new level of detail, as they stand there glassy-eyed as if hypnotized. You can see them thinking: “This is strange and different, but hey, it must be the new thing. I’ll take it!”

And now the essence of that thought has been reinforced by what will be one of the biggest movies of the year. High frame rates are becoming the new normal. And I don’t think it’s because I’m an “old fogey,” to use Peter Jackson’s term, or some conservative film traditionalist that I object to that. I don’t think it’s a matter, in this case, of embracing the latest technology. There’s a cost to this advance, and it amounts to no less than a cheapening of an art form.

What do you think? This debate will only get more fervent as still more HDTVs land in living rooms with the heinous motion smoothing settings enabled by default, and as still more blockbusters—including the next Hobbit—are released at 48fps. How do we want our filmed art to be exhibited and enjoyed? As Scott Tobias says in “You’re watching it wrong: Threats to the image in the digital age,” “It’s not just that people are watching TV wrong—it’s that they’re being encouraged to watch TV wrong. Funhouse distortion has become the norm.”

That’s what scares me.

This blog first appeared on

Tags: 48fps
Location: Blogs Parent Separator RES Blogs

5 comment(s) so far...


Re: The Hobbit, 48fps, and the Broadening of the Soap Opera Effect

I can't get used to this either. Every time I walk into someone's house and see this, I immediately get this queasy feeling and an urge to correct it (even when they don't want me to). I hope something comes along that marries the higher frame rate and film-like look. Soon.

By Paul on   12/19/2012 2:49 PM

Re: The Hobbit, 48fps, and the Broadening of the Soap Opera Effect

I have always thought that motion picture film made everything look like a cartoon and "unreal". Remember also that even 24 frames per second is "interrupted" at projection twice per frame to make it appear to be 48 frames per second to the eye! Most film people forget this fact. 24 fps in its raw form is very "flickery". If you watch film at high frame rates, even 30 fps, the quality is so much higher and the line starts being crossed of starting to look real, that you can start seeing the bad set construction and sloppy makeup. I like high frame rates on film, it simply will take a next generation of higher quality producers, directors and technicians to do it well. Kudos to Jackson for having the boldness to do this! as for smooth motion settings I have seen so many independent films with the wrong film cadence and bad motion, I was happy to see they can be corrected by a good smooth motion setting.

By Elvis on   12/19/2012 4:16 PM

Re: The Hobbit, 48fps, and the Broadening of the Soap Opera Effect

Jason, have you actually SEEN the film in HRF? This looks more like a discussion of TV sets with frame interpolation turned on. I won't see The Hobbit in HFR until next week but on all of the video forums I read, the response to 48fps has be overwhelmingly positive. Don't automatically assume digital with HFR. I've seen Showscan presented at 60fps on 65mm film and it looks nothing like a "soap opera". While too expensive for mass commercial exploitation, it was breathtaking.

Maybe they will add digital film grain to future HFR presentations to keep you happy.

By John on   12/21/2012 4:50 PM

Life is a Soap Opera

I remember this was the same argument when digital cinema was first introduced - critics thought it was too real and could never replace the "warmth" of film. Now we all accept digital cinema as the norm. We'll eventually be looking at 48 FPS the same way and bewail its demise when 64 FPS is introduced.

By Mario on   12/26/2012 12:54 PM

Re: The Hobbit, 48fps, and the Broadening of the Soap Opera Effect

The above picture is 0 frames per second and yet it looks like the soap opera effect has affected it. In this case it looks like a soap opera because it is obviously lit by studio lights. I think if you get rid of the unrealistic factors then the soap opera effect won't be a problem. You can no longer use makeup and cheap special effects makeup. Clothing and sets need more than ever to have a worn look to them. Even the finest clothing needs to have some flaws. Only a king or millionaire character can have perfect clothing and setting anymore. Otherwise you will feel like your in a studio watching actors.

By Mark on   3/19/2013 1:48 AM

Your name:
Gravatar Preview
Your email:
(Optional) Email used only to show Gravatar.
Your website:
Security Code
Enter the code shown above in the box below
Add Comment   Cancel 


<February 2015>
February 2015 (11)
January 2015 (16)
December 2014 (12)
November 2014 (10)
October 2014 (19)
September 2014 (21)
August 2014 (13)
July 2014 (15)
June 2014 (12)
May 2014 (12)
April 2014 (14)
March 2014 (15)
February 2014 (14)
January 2014 (24)
December 2013 (11)
November 2013 (12)
October 2013 (15)
September 2013 (19)
August 2013 (18)
July 2013 (19)
June 2013 (12)
May 2013 (18)
April 2013 (17)
March 2013 (13)
February 2013 (16)
January 2013 (26)
December 2012 (9)
November 2012 (11)
October 2012 (16)
September 2012 (11)
August 2012 (15)
July 2012 (13)
June 2012 (8)
May 2012 (9)
April 2012 (10)
March 2012 (7)
February 2012 (11)
January 2012 (14)
December 2011 (5)
November 2011 (12)
October 2011 (8)
September 2011 (4)
August 2011 (7)
July 2011 (11)
June 2011 (12)
May 2011 (8)
April 2011 (6)
March 2011 (9)
February 2011 (10)
January 2011 (9)
December 2010 (4)
November 2010 (7)
October 2010 (4)
September 2010 (9)
August 2010 (7)
July 2010 (8)
June 2010 (12)
May 2010 (6)
April 2010 (8)
March 2010 (10)
February 2010 (11)
January 2010 (1)
December 2009 (6)
November 2009 (6)
October 2009 (11)
September 2009 (6)
August 2009 (4)
July 2009 (4)
June 2009 (5)
May 2009 (7)
April 2009 (9)
March 2009 (7)
February 2009 (9)
January 2009 (8)
December 2008 (9)
November 2008 (6)
October 2008 (7)
September 2008 (7)
August 2008 (3)
July 2008 (5)
May 2008 (1)
April 2008 (4)
March 2008 (3)
February 2008 (5)
January 2008 (2)
November 2007 (1)
October 2007 (4)
September 2007 (2)
August 2007 (3)
July 2007 (4)
June 2007 (6)
May 2007 (6)
April 2007 (4)
March 2007 (4)


Skip Navigation Links.
Skip Navigation Links.

Tech Toys and the Price of Lost Privacy
Read More»
By Heather L. Sidorowicz

5 Keys to a Healthier Custom Integrator Lifestyle
Read More»
By John Sciacca

5 Reasons to Skip DIY Automation
Read More»
By Todd Anthony Puma

Listening to Atmos: 'Ninja Turtles' and 'John Wick' Blu-ray Reviews
Read More»
By John Sciacca

Are You Still a TV Sales Company?
Read More»
By Heather L. Sidorowicz

Slide Show
Slide Show

Audio Video Systems, Plainview, NY
Slide Show

Station Earth, Fergus, Ontario, Canada
Slide Show

Audio Command Systems, Westbury, NY
Slide Show

Evolution Video and Sound, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Moncler Jackets Are Always Waiting For Us
Read More»
Cheap Ralph Lauren-The Ability-How
Read More»
Ralph Lauren Polo Shirts Make Your Styler Cool And Stylish
Read More»
The silver may be collected from providing of WildStar Platinum
Read More»
Buy Your Moncler From The Internet!
Read More»
A Brace Of Broad From Ralph Lauren Polo Shirts
Read More»
Moncler Jacket Provides From The Edition Of Coat
Read More»
Warm And Classy Moncler Jackets
Read More»
Cheap Ralph Lauren Polo Shirts: The Best Way To Spot Is Deal
Read More»
Why Are Boy's Mens Polo Shirt P
Read More»