The Depository of Geek- The Frame Rate Debate

A lot of print space and discussion this week among film purists, theater owners, and film writers and commentators has involved the push to change the projection rate on films from 24 fps to 48fps.  This charge is being led by two of Hollywood’s most successful directors, James Cameron and Peter Jackson. 

At the annual gathering of theater owners, known now as Cinemacon, in Las Vegas this week Mr. Cameron pleaded his case for theater owners to upgrade their projectors to be able to project at 48fps.  He argued that by projecting at this rate, the problems with dimness in relation to 3-D films would be diminished, if not gone entirely. He also argued at 48fps, the image is much more crisp and real, surpassing even those images on HD televisions.

The funny thing is that this is not the first time that Mr. Cameron has went to theater owners and asked them to embrace new technology.  Here is an article that details Cameron’s previous attempts to get theater owners to change formats or upgrade technology.  It is a well written piece and comes highly recommend.  So check that article out now or after you finishing reading this post. 

Now, before I go any further I want to take a moment to explain to the uninitiated just exactly what I am talking about in relation to fps and how it impacts the projection of films.  FPS stands for frames per second.  It is the amount of frames that are projected each second.  For all films projected now in theaters, the standard is 24 frames per second.  Back in the early days of cinema, it was around 16-18 frames.  I am not sure of the history, but it was determined that 24 was the magic number when it came to projection rates and the quality of the image therein.

Now I could go deeper into how a projector works and what the aperture is and all of that (I was a film major many moons ago), but I think you can do that legwork yourself. 

At this point you now know what the argument is and what the supposed benefits of this change in frame rate are- in short: less dim image with 3-D and better overall image quality.  The next question that comes up is if Cameron and Jackson have anything to show to prove their point in relation to the advantages of a higher frame rate.  In fact, they do. 

Yesterday at Cinemacon, Jackson presented 10 minutes of his upcoming film The Hobbit- An Unexpected Journey.  This footage was shot at a rate of 48fps and projected at that rate to all assembled.  The reactions of those who attended were varied but most of the theater owners and film journalists who exited the presentation were unimpressed.  Here is a commentary on this screening of footage by someone who attended this screening. 

Basically the consensus was that the landscape shots were stunning at the higher frame rate.  However any interior shots or those on sets were terrible, with one commentator going so far as to say that the illusion was gone and the sets looked like sets. Certainly not something you aim for when you are trying to get an audience to believe in the imaginary world your characters are in.

It is generally believed that this presentation was a misfire and put a major delay on theater owners being convinced to change the way they do things.  But, there are other reasons for the theater owners to say thanks, but no thanks to Mr. Cameron’s request.

The first of which is cost.  For projectors manufactured after January of 2000, a software upgrade is needed in order for them to project at the higher frame rate of 48fps. This sounds easy enough, right?  But, this upgrade will cost theater owners $10,000 per projector.  Not a cheap proposition. 

For projectors manufactured before January of 2000, there is no upgrade available and those projectors would need to be replaced.  I don’t know the cost of a new projector, but I can imagine it is up in the high five/low six figure range. If you are a theater owner who has multiple theater complexes, that could become a very high cost for you to bear. 

With the costs kind of laid out, there is the question as to what the return would be on this investment.  As of right now, Peter Jackson is the only director shooting a film at the 48fps rate.  No one has yet announced they will follow suit.  So the theater owners need to ask themselves if they want to pay out this much money to upgrade only to use the new technology for two films: The Hobbit- The Unexpected Journey and its sequel The Hobbit- There and Back Again.  This is a no brainer right now; it is just bad business for the theater owners.

The theater owners simply have no guarantees that more filmmakers will come aboard and start shooting their films in this way.  Therefore, there is just no profit to be made from a switch of this nature until more studios and filmmakers agree to shoot and release their films with this higher frame rate.

Last, the technology is not perfected yet.  As witnessed by the reaction to The Hobbit footage, there is still some work to be done on both ends of the camera to make this higher frame rate have value.  For now, it is a curious experiment and one that I kind of think should not have been undertaken with a film of The Hobbit’s size and stakes for the studios involved.   

My thoughts on this are that in this case change is not yet warranted.  I am a film lover as many know who have read this blog.  I love the cinema and the experience of seeing a movie in a theater with a group of strangers.  Mr. Cameron and his ilk do not need to impress us with 3-D or cleaner, crisper, and more awe inspiring image quality.  Concentrate on a great story with well defined characters and real stakes.  Then film it using a regular camera in innovative ways or really challenge your Director of Photography to light the scene in ways that create depth or interest.  I feel 2-D images are just as immersive and awe-inspiring, if not more so, that those I have seen in 3-D. 

I feel 3-D and higher frame rates are all gimmicks in Hollywood’s futile attempts to drive people back into the theaters.  People will flock back when the product is of high quality and worth seeing.  They will also come back when the theater owners clean up their acts and start creating and enforcing no talking/texting policies in all their theaters.  Or when they embrace film history and start having revival screenings of fan favorites, like films released in a certain year or films in a series.  Mr. Cameron and his supporters need to remember that it is not the next thing technologically that draws people to films; it is the stories those films tell and the characters they introduce us to.  Directors, like James Cameron and Peter Jackson, need to get back to telling good stories and stop concerning themselves with blazing a new trail with film technology.