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

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Guest

Guest
what? I just brought a 120hz LED last week. am I just wasted my money to buy that overkill monitor?
 

memadmax

Distinguished
Mar 25, 2011
538
0
18,940
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.....
 

Maxor127

Distinguished
Jul 16, 2007
362
0
18,930
I can imagine how crappy it must've looked. But it's all moot because the movie is being released at 24fps, too, from what I read.
 

christarp

Honorable
Mar 9, 2012
40
0
10,580
Eugh. without the natural blur that accompanies 24 fps your brain goes "wait, why isn't this blurry, this clearly isn't real" it doesn't help the movie at all. It ruins immersion. I can't blame him though, he also shot the movie in 3d... What are you doing peter.
 

back_by_demand

Distinguished
Jul 16, 2009
1,599
0
19,730
A lot of negative people in here, you haven't seen the movie yourself and you're pissing all over it, Peter Jackson knows what he is doing a lot more than you do
 

IQ11110002

Distinguished
Jul 28, 2009
26
0
18,580
You could all be driving around in Model T Fords as well,Does the same job right!
Get with the times,Especially if you are a regular gamer you will notice more than the average persons eyes would ever notice,More frames the better in my opinion. I don't see people whinging at their 100fps on some shooter game.
 

zankuto

Distinguished
Aug 24, 2010
21
0
18,560
He speaks out against negative comments because hes too lazy to fix his mistake and/or it will cost too much.
 

agnickolov

Distinguished
Aug 10, 2006
147
0
18,630
I'm also tired of this ancient low frame rate. While 48 fps is a step in the right direction, we need to reach at least 60, possibly 72 fps. There's a reason viewers are getting confused - without the ancient motion blur you start to see flickering. If you remember the old CRT days, 72 fps was the lowest refresh rate you don't see flicker.
 

dimar

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2009
290
0
18,930
I wonder if the theaters would have to upgrade their equipment to handle 48 fps? If yes, are they going to? How will we know?

My Sony camcorder shoots at 1080p 60fps 28Mb/s. I just cannot go back to the old 30 fps any more, after watching how smooth, fluid, and real everything looks.

:) if it was up to me, I'd shoot the Hobbit at 120 fps
 
G

Guest

Guest
Every single person reacts negatively when he sees high-fps footage for the first time. And every single person can not bear look at low-fps footage after a few weeks of watching high-fps.
 

Hellbound

Distinguished
Jul 7, 2004
184
0
18,630
lol, imagine selling the movie with tech specs...

Shot in full 3D HD 48 frames per second, 100000000:1 contrast ratio (only in selective theaters), 7.1 surround sound - sound so real if it doesn't tickle your prostate, you sitting in the chair wrong...

*disclaimer - TWC does not accept responsibility if tickling of prostate leads to cancer, herpes or erectile dysfunction......
 

psaus

Distinguished
Jun 13, 2006
37
0
18,590
Hollywood needs to get with the times - 24fps was an economical decision in 1920. It saved film. We're still using this 93yo standard. Should we continue to use the definition and film of 1920? No. 72fps should be the goal, if not 96/100. But I guess we have to let Hollywood take baby steps.
Once you go 48, you'll never go back. :)
 

kingius

Distinguished
Oct 15, 2003
10
0
18,560
"Once you go 48, you'll never go back?" Nonsense, I went HD and then went back to standard definition because you stop seeing it after a while and it makes no huge difference to the experience: a bad film sucks in HD, SD, 3D or 48FPS. I'm not saying the Hobbit is a bad film but you can bet a truckload of bad films will come out in 48FPS and people will buy them because they buy into the hype and it's only later that they realise, huh, we didn't need it after all... what we needed was a _good story_.
 

alidan

Distinguished
Aug 5, 2009
1,681
0
19,730
[citation][nom]memadmax[/nom]They are running out of sales-pitches to suck your wallet dry....[/citation]
um... no... its not a gimmick if its actually shot in 48fps, just like 3d isn't if its a real 3d movie and not a crappy conversion many are.

higher frame rate will look weird at first, but think of real life, we don't have fps in real life, the "cinematic" feel he is talking about is it being to clean and such... we have things in video games like deapth of field, that sun flair, and things like that that mimic the downfalls of cameras and such... we make the games look worse, and take up processing power, to make them look like film or "real life" for some stupid reason.

[citation][nom]andrew88778[/nom]what? I just brought a 120hz LED last week. am I just wasted my money to buy that overkill monitor?[/citation]

if its an actual 120hz monitor, than you got a great looking hq monitor... if you got it on the cheap and the 120 hz lags... well... yea you wasted money.

[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]

disney has only ever been good at remaking classic literature. when ever they try to do their own thing, it usually fails hard. older disney was good, when walt and his infulance was still around "if you are only thinking of the children, your dead. what are adults but children grown up" that is a quote (though not exact) of his... i hate his company and what they did to copyright, but i have to admit that people like that are a dieing bread. corporate mentality cant let a 100million + movie be original unless you have MAJOR clout. usually you end up with a boring movie with effects, it goes through the paces that have proven successful in the past, but never break the mold.

[citation][nom]Maxor127[/nom]I can imagine how crappy it must've looked. But it's all moot because the movie is being released at 24fps, too, from what I read.[/citation]

because it doesn't look like a cinematic disaster, and looks crisp, i can imagine what it looked like, and i can tell you this, there is no way you can watch an action movie, especial shakey cam movies, and not see excessive blur when the camera moves.

and when i say cinematic, i mean that it has all the flaws in it that critics cant live without. remember many of them are pretentious snobs.

[citation][nom]christarp[/nom]Eugh. without the natural blur that accompanies 24 fps your brain goes "wait, why isn't this blurry, this clearly isn't real" it doesn't help the movie at all. It ruins immersion. I can't blame him though, he also shot the movie in 3d... What are you doing peter.[/citation]

yea, because real life is 24fps
you arent use to seeing a movie any faster than that... its why 120hz and 240hz look unnatural when you first watch them, but give them 30 min, and its a bit hard to go back.
and i have to trust him on shooting in 3d, imagine the lord of the rings movies if they were 3d given all the special effects...

[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]A lot of negative people in here, you haven't seen the movie yourself and you're pissing all over it, Peter Jackson knows what he is doing a lot more than you do[/citation]

i agree with you, but he is also directing the movie... he has to hype it.
48fps looks unatural at first, but its like 120 hz, you get use to it, and its hard to go back after a while.

[citation][nom]IQ11110002[/nom]You could all be driving around in Model T Fords as well,Does the same job right!Get with the times,Especially if you are a regular gamer you will notice more than the average persons eyes would ever notice,More frames the better in my opinion. I don't see people whinging at their 100fps on some shooter game.[/citation]

i remember a time when competitive people reduced graphics setting as much as they could to get 120fps off a game as the normal... partially because if the frames dipped it was still a playable rate, but also because they honed themselves to the point where they needed that for the speed they played.

now if a game gets 60fps off a midrange card people complain... will never understand people.

but on the same token, blindly moveing forward is never good, see windows 8 and a clear example... and to a lesser windows 7, which cut many features i still miss after 5 months of useing it.

[citation][nom]zankuto[/nom]He speaks out against negative comments because hes too lazy to fix his mistake and/or it will cost too much.[/citation]

or because these people that are complaining want movies to go back to the black and white days, because they were more artistic, or probably because the people complaining cant enjoy a movie that Terrence Malick didn't make. trust me, there are tons of pretentious critics, and most of them are the voices you hear all to often... or know about, Roger Ebert, im sure we all know, is so pretentious about movies that he can barely enjoy anything new, and not as pretentious as himself.

[citation][nom]agnickolov[/nom]I'm also tired of this ancient low frame rate. While 48 fps is a step in the right direction, we need to reach at least 60, possibly 72 fps. There's a reason viewers are getting confused - without the ancient motion blur you start to see flickering. If you remember the old CRT days, 72 fps was the lowest refresh rate you don't see flicker.[/citation]

from my understanding, they insert frames into movies to make them a higher rate, but nothing happens in those frames... i cant articulate it, but i don't believe its a true 24fps film, i may be completely wrong through.

[citation][nom]whysobluepandabear[/nom]Someone tell me why higher FPS is bad? Is this the same argument that people have with record players vs digital? They're convinced that, that "Noise" somehow makes it sound better?[/citation]

its hard to explain... at least record vs digital... there is something about a record that i cant put my finger on that sounds better than pre cd music.
but here its also a subjective thing... where some people will love it, and some will have to live with the change, and we will have to bare with the crappy conversions for years.

[citation][nom]Alex222[/nom]Every single person reacts negatively when he sees high-fps footage for the first time. And every single person can not bear look at low-fps footage after a few weeks of watching high-fps.[/citation]

given a choice i woundnt want to watch low fps, but i learned from vhs and dvd that some things will never be better in new formats...
 

pharoahhalfdead

Distinguished
Nov 30, 2010
36
0
18,580
I would like to see 48fps in nature programs. Hey, if they re-released Planet Earth and Frozen Planet using 48fps scenes in stead of the standard I would buy them again. I think that's where it would benefit most. I'm not concerned with movies using the technology.
 

mr_bonkers

Honorable
Apr 26, 2012
3
0
10,510
BOO.

24fps is what makes cinema LOOK like Cinema. I can't stand home-video like smoothness. It doesn't look like a movie anymore when you get framerates that fast. I'd rather put up with camera and object motion blur and judder if it means it looks cinematic.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.