There's been plenty of buzz about The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, but it's not just about the movie itself. It's also about the format the director , which he defended in detail in a Facebook post a few weeks ago. Normally, films are shot at 24 frames per second (fps), and have been for roughly 80 years. American television is broadcast at 29.97 fps, while European television is broadcast at 25 fps. Each of these have a unique look to which we've all grown accustomed.

What makes The Hobbit different is Peter Jackson's method for shooting it. He has employed an array of high-resolution RED Epic cameras recording video at 5,120-by-2,700-pixel resolution, and at 48 fps (known in the industry, along with 60 fps, as High Frame Rate). Depending on your viewpoint, the result either looks more lifelike than ever before, or it seems oddly cold, and too much like digital footage from live sports channels or daytime television.

Source Material vs. Screen Refresh Rates

Earlier this year, some people who had attended CinemaCon 2012 in Las Vegas criticized a 10-minute broadcast of unfinished footage shown there at the time. As Jackson wrote in a much earlier Facebook post in 2011, with 24 fps film (digital or analog), "there is often quite a lot of blur in each frame, during fast movements, and if the camera is moving around quickly, the image can judder or 'strobe.'"

Jackson argued that 48 fps does a lot to eliminate these issues, and looks especially good in 3D—another contentious topic in the film industry. According to Jackson, 48 fps resolves the eye strain issue people have experienced when viewing 3D, although he claims 48 fps also just looks better in 2D, as well. But many critics were less kind, with one Entertainment Weekly blog post saying the clips Jackson showed at CinemaCon "looked much more like visiting the set of a film rather than seeing the textured cinematography of a finished movie."

This controversy brings up a number of interesting questions about frame rates in general. Normal, analog interlaced television displays at 60 fps. But that's deceptive, because it's actually broadcast at 30 (or 29.97, to be precise) fps. The TV then displays those frames twice, sort of—one pass for the even scan line field, and one pass for the odd scan line field, in a process known as interlacing. By doubling the effective frame rate, interlacing contributes to a sense of motion and reduces perceived flicker.

High-definition (1080-line) television is also interlaced—hence the 1080i designation. But 1080p high-definition movies are progressively drawn line after line—they're not interlaced. In fact, Blu-ray actually displays at 30 fps regardless of the source material. Using a method called 2:3 pulldown, it distributes the frames to display 24 fps film footage properly at 30 fps.

You may have also heard of the "soap opera" effect, which occurs with some recent high-definition television sets that feature 120Hz or 240Hz modes, instead of just the usual 60Hz. (The frame rate is usually expressed as "Hz" with progressive scan monitors; hence, 60Hz instead of 60 fps). The frame rate of the source material is independent of the refresh rate of the TV. Instead, what's happening here is that the TV, using its own software, is interpolating what would have been in the original source material, had there been extra frames, and adds them on its own for a smoother effect. The problem is that it also looks somewhat unnatural, or dreamy, and more like an older live TV camera than proper film footage. I personally don't like it. I turn this mode off on my own 120Hz set, and while I've seen countless 240Hz HDTVs, I have yet to warm up to the effect.

For some, it may be déjà vu all over again with 48-fps movies like The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. This time, the extra frames are actually there, and not just interpolated and added after the fact, which is much better from a theoretical standpoint. But the effect is generating the same sort of revulsion in some viewers, whatever else it does to add realism and sharpness to the look.

Video game frame rates are a separate issue. For example, why is 48 fps so weird, given that most gamers prefer an even 60 fps on the PS3, the Xbox 360, and the PC? With games, as with the way film or television is shot, the frame rate is referring to the source material—in other words, how fast the hardware is rendering new images for smoother animation. Gamers like the ultra-smooth look and improved reaction times you get at 60fps, and at least when building PCs, fight hard to boost average rendered frame rates past it, in order to get enough processing headroom to maintain a floor of 60fps in particularly crowded and busy scenes as the game progresses.

Digital Projection and the Future

Regardless of how The Hobbit ultimately does with audiences, Jackson maintains that filmmakers will continue to experiment with the new technology, and continue to shoot in it. In general, this is a useful viewpoint to have. Sometimes experiments don't work out so well; recall the hollow, spacey look of animated human characters in The Polar Express, or the equally artificial motion capture animation technique used in Mars Needs Moms (if you've seen it, that is; most people haven't, judging by its dreadful box office numbers). Some have likened it to the famed "uncanny valley" effect, where something robotic looks almost human, but not quite, and therefore extremely creepy.

In the cases of these two movies, it was because you can't place motion sensors in the eyes or mouth, so those portions of the animation were computer generated using a different technique. Other times, it pays off. We've seen plenty of successful motion capture with Gollum in Peter Jackson's own Lord of the Rings trilogy, as well as James Cameron's Avatar.

It's still too early to tell which camp 48-fps footage will fall in, and whether Bilbo Baggins' story will be better served as a result. As the first major studio release shot in 48 fps—and given Peter Jackson's pedigree, and the storied Lord of the Rings franchise—it's turning out to be one grand experiment. In fact, many theaters still haven't upgraded their projection equipment to display footage in 48 fps. According to the Los Angeles Times, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, which opens in theaters today, will play in 48fps initially on 450 of the 4,000-or-so screens it has opened on. A site called 48fpsmovies.com, run by Michael Stat, appears to be keeping a useful, up-to-date list of U.S. theaters capable of showing 48fps films.

For more, see and ?

For more from Jamie, follow him on Twitter: @jlendino.