The Hobbit Shot at 48fps Instead of 24fps, Mixed Reactions

[alidan]

[citation][nom]zingam_duo[/nom]In recent years it is not the fps, it is the content that makes Hollywood's production pure ****![/citation]

yea, ill agree to some extent, but a crisp film will be better than a bad blurry one.

[citation][nom]Antimatter79[/nom]You don't see 3d in "normal" life. Are you a cyclops? A pirate? What happened to your depth perception?[/citation]

day to day life, i just dont have it... the only reason that i know i cant touch something is because i know how far it is away from me. but if i let my mind wander, the screen im looking at, that is about 4 feet away from me as im typeing, and is 24 inches, seams like i could grab it with my hand hold it, and put it down without extending my arm at all...

it is VERY weird and disorientating and at times makes me dizy when i cant focus at all...

but a movie, or a game, in 3d even bad 3d, is the only sensation of it i can ever remember feeling.

 

[jamie_1318]

Yes as many people have said vision is analogue. I have seen one study where they flashed a picture of a fighter jet onto a screen in front of a bunch of pilots for 1/600s and every single pilot correctly identified the jet. Our eyes run in smooth transitions but the frames do not.

One other thing is that they probably chose 48 fps so that they could downscale to 24 easily. you won't get choppy movement if you remove every other frame like you would re-sampling from other Framerates.

 

[Parsian]

for those who are interested, there is a 4K trailer for Hobbits:
http/www.youtube.com/watch?v=t56ooXC9VmY

 

[alxianthelast]

The actors can still talk dramatically and move in deliberate slow motion if you don't like the idea of 48fps. Can't imagine the mods in the street if Michael Bay, for example decides 48 is not enough and we need 60fps or 96 fps.

My question is where the CG houses sit on this development.. being coerced to support double or tripple the frame count for CG if Hobbit does make a big hairy bare footed splash in the argument of higher frame rates for action movies. While the argument against is the picture inducing motion sickness, higher costs, etc.

 

[lorfa]

I am so happy to hear this!!! 24 fps has been unwatchable to me for over a decade :-(

 

[Guest]

Smooth video project... if you can get it installed correctly it will make many of the videos you playback on the PC real smooth. Sometimes real close to what you see on a 120hz/240hz screen but only on a 60hz screen.

 

[livebriand]

Since TVs are all a multiple of 60Hz, why not shoot this in 60fps?

 

[dreadlokz]

Peter Jackson RULES!!! I think we can pause at 72fps! Then go for higher resolution, then 120fps! Ppl who say more then 24fps is crap, I tell you, the video/movie is crap... the smooth image just show you all the flaws! I think Peter Jackson is doing a great move, and with higher fps movies will be much more realistic =) Way to go Peter!!!

I wonder how is gonna be Transformers 4 in 48fps... probably still a crap movie, but with some cool scenes of drestruction, and this time, veeeeery smooth =)

Download of this movie at 1080p and 48fps will be like 30gb! ;p Not a problem to me, maybe a problem to those who are complaining, or maybe they just feel that 15 FPS videogames and consoles are enough! Poor ignorant ppl =s

 

[techtre2003]

I'm one of the apparently few here that dislike the higher speed. Maybe there is a difference between frame rate and refresh rate, but I HATE watching movies on the newer TVs at the faster refresh rate. And for me it's not something I'll just get used to. I have a friend with one of these TVs and have watched several movies and every time it bugs me more and more. Also, to me the faster refresh rate can make the film seem MORE juddery at times; almost like it's missing a few frames and then trying to catch up. Maybe that's just something not implemented right in the Smooth Motion settings, but either way I don't like it.

So I guess I'll reserve my opinion until after I see the movie, but if it's like watching a movie on a newer Samsung plasma I don't think I'll like it. Higher resolution is great. Higher fidelity audio with more channels is awesome. 3D is cool although tiresome after a while. But the 24fps "film" look is something I like just the way it is.

 

[demonhorde665]

[citation][nom]memadmax[/nom]You ever notice that for the past decade the majority of movies are remakes of the originals or are dry, almost dirt quality part 2's or part 3's?I was going thru a chronological release list of all of Disney's movies... and right around 2000, the list turns into a cornucopia of repeating words followed by incrementing numbers... check it out yourself, the pattern is undeniable.....[/citation]


the game industry is right there with them , though the quality hasn't quite dropped completely yet .. seriously think about it .. CoD" Mw 3 a sequel of a spin off , same with black ops 2..

Ms is gearing to milk halo more with halo 4 , ea defeinitely has something cooked up for mass effect down the road , , it never stops , very very few people in the game industry or the movie industry actually plan to release new IP's

 

[demonhorde665]

[citation][nom]techtre2003[/nom]I'm one of the apparently few here that dislike the higher speed. Maybe there is a difference between frame rate and refresh rate, but I HATE watching movies on the newer TVs at the faster refresh rate. And for me it's not something I'll just get used to. I have a friend with one of these TVs and have watched several movies and every time it bugs me more and more. Also, to me the faster refresh rate can make the film seem MORE juddery at times; almost like it's missing a few frames and then trying to catch up. Maybe that's just something not implemented right in the Smooth Motion settings, but either way I don't like it.So I guess I'll reserve my opinion until after I see the movie, but if it's like watching a movie on a newer Samsung plasma I don't think I'll like it. Higher resolution is great. Higher fidelity audio with more channels is awesome. 3D is cool although tiresome after a while. But the 24fps "film" look is something I like just the way it is.[/citation]


actually oen reason why high refresh rate is important on monitors and tv's is because, any thing below 70 hz , tends to give most people severe headaches , which are brought on by the screen flashing frames at us, (this is also why it is not advisable for people with epilepsy to watch more than 30 minutes of tv at a time). while 70 hz is good , higher is better, a tv shoudl ahve atleast 120hz on it really

 

[dizzy_davidh]

[citation][nom]memadmax[/nom]You ever notice that for the past decade the majority of movies are remakes of the originals or are dry, almost dirt quality part 2's or part 3's?I was going thru a chronological release list of all of Disney's movies... and right around 2000, the list turns into a cornucopia of repeating words followed by incrementing numbers... check it out yourself, the pattern is undeniable.....[/citation]

The type of recycling you are describing has been around for a long time with re-makes (think Tron), additions to a series (Star Wars etc.) and sequels that get progressively worse as each is released (Underworld) all in the name of saving some money.

If you hold the licence for a genre and you keep re-using the same material you don't have to pay for it again ala. Disney's method that you mentioned.

It tends to be the case, especially in hard financial times such as those around now, that you see a lot more of these fads\gimmicks in films and TV to keep audiences coming back for the same old stuff in a new wrapper. The best example (or worst depending on your point of view) is Lucas with his re-inventions the Star Wars saga having been released, wide-screened, digitally re-mastered, special-edition'ed and prequel'led, Blu-Ray\HD'ed, animated and most recently 3D'ed (35 years of income from one story is really 'milking it' George!