Nothing could be further from the truth. Faster frame rates have been around for decades. Yes, decades and no one has ever said they made film (I'm talking real film) look like soap opera.
Proof? I just finished producing and watching a 60p HD video and it looks exactly the same as the 24 and 30 fps versions except that it lacks a bit of the jitter. But it does not look like a video game, or "float" against the background or look like Days of Our Lives.
The subject of my 60p video is walking back and forth on a stage, and he does not suddenly "pop" out from the background in the 60p version.
If not high frame rate, what is the culprit? Likely motion smoothing of some sort. This can be seen on consumer grade settings on TV's in the big box stores. Often I've walked by wondering what video game is playing, only to realize it's a major Hollywood movie "treated" with the crappy digital smoothing.
On the other hand there are many 60fps videos on YouTube that do not look like a soap opera or a video game.
Jackson has been mum about any digital smoothing. But the effect is clear. One recent CNET editor put it:
I noticed that artificial look at one point early in the film, when Bilbo gets astride his first pony, and the background moves behind him in a scroll, as if it were printed on a piece of paper unrolling to simulate his riding forward.This separation of forground from background is a classic artifact of digital smoothing programs such as Twixtor. High frame rate simply does not cause that type of artifact.
You can see this even at 30 frames per second on commercials on your TV when it was applied with crappy "motion smoothing" effects during editing. The edge sharpening that makes things look "too real" survives reduction to 30fps for broadcast. Take for example those wretched Sandals commercials. Once you get over gagging on the overuse of Time of My Life, you see couples enjoying the beach then suddenly for a second the speed is increased. In the past, the look would have stayed the same, just faster. But not with crappy "motion smoothing," or frame interpolation. Suddenly it looks like pre-HD HandyCam video dropped into a high end commercial. But again, it's not the frame rate per se. It's the digital motion smoothing processing.
And you can see it in Best Buy with spec-driven consumer HDTV's that boast frame interpolation and other digital post effects to get "the smoothest" motion known to man the sale rep implies you're just a bumpkin used to 1920's 24fps technology, and after a while you'll just get used to it.
What do digital smoothing filters do? Here's a description of how LCD HDTV does it:
Most LCD-TV vendors have introduced technologies that generate new frames of content based on interpolation of the source material. The programs use mathematical algorithms to analyze adjacent frames (or a group of adjacent frames) and figure out where moving objects might logically be in the fraction of a second that the source video doesn't contain.So a consumer grade chip in the TV is finding things that move in the scene, isolating them, creating new fake "in-between" versions and the result is they very smoothly float like a paper moon over a cardboard sea.
So a "cow" walking through the scene is outlined, and cloned and "tweened" between the first real frame and the next real frame. Yes, now the cow smoothly floats across the screen, instead of walking.
Another proof that frame rate alone does not remove the film look: take 24 fps and reduce it to 20 or 12 fps and ask: does that look more film like? No. It simply looks a bit more choppy.
Picture an old flip book animation in your hands. Flipping the pages at 48 per second won't suddenly make it look real or a foreground object "pop" off the background.
Yet all we read on Jackson's Facebook page is that it was "48fps" that accounts for everything. And the press piles on with pitchforks and torches: "Death to 48!"
More journalistic silliness abounds with some suggesting it's because he shot on, digital rather than film. But that just doesn't wash. There are plenty of all digital films that have a wonderful filmlike look. Not one has noticed. But we read things like this from Jason Gorbor on Twitchfilms (emphasis mine):
From the music to the costumes to the iconic New Zealand vistas, it's easy for any fan of the other films to immediately feel that they're returning back to middle earth, except for one major technical change - eschewing the celluloid used as the main capture format for the previous trilogy, Jackson has instead shot The Hobbit on digital video, in 3D, and using 48 frames per second ("high frame rate", or HFR, as opposed to the normal 24fps), and with a 270° shutter angle.Then there's the argument that 24fps has a lot of "smearing" and "motion blur" and that's what makes film look like film. That doesn't even make sense. Shutter speed versus object's motion alone determines blur whether you're shooting one still or 1000 frames per second high speed.
And that brings up another point: what about all those ultra high speed shots we've seen of bullets piercing an apple, or of explosions on Mythbusters? Even at 1000 or more frames per second, whether you play them back at 24, 30, 60, or 1000 fps they don't change their look. In fact, they look rather film like at any speed!
And forget "jitter." Jitter/judder doesn't mask a movie set's fakeness any more than scratches on the celluloid, or gate weave do. They exist in a whole different realm of artifacts that have nothing to do with the presence/reality factor of film.
Jackson uses a very unfortunate analogy to explain the "new" effect of his HFR 3D on the audience:
HFR 3D is “different” — it won’t feel like the movies you’re used to seeing, in much the same way as the first CDs didn’t sound like vinyl records.Oh wow! Does anyone remember listening to the "first CD's" on the first CD players? Ouch! They sounded awful. It wasn't about getting used to it. They still sound wretched if you were to drag out that old Phillips 1984 CD player. It wasn't "different"--it was defective!
Motion blur. Here's another demon Jackson criticizes. He implied that somehow 24fps always has tons of motion blur and that always obscures details. But this is wrong for several obvious reasons. First, many 24fps scenes have little or no motion! And "detail" does not suddenly increase in a shot that goes from pan to static where the audience says, "Wow, suddenly it looks so real." Secondly it all depends on your shutter speed or angle in cinema terms whether or how much motion blur you get. Sure, if a cinematographer insists on shooting everything at 360 degrees (i..e., the full 1/24 of a second a frame is in the gate to be exposed) or, in Jackson's case, 270 degrees (3/4 of the max exposure time possible for a frame), then, yes, I supposed 48fps would make less blur. But for action scenes most filmmakers choose a much faster, smaller shutter angle. And even then, motion blur from the relatively slow shutter speeds of a cinema camera actually helps to smooth motion naturally, making it look less staccato. And 270 degrees with 48fps is still only 1/64 exposure time, slow in the world we are used to with DSLR's.