I pit 48 fps

[Maserschmidt]

@MaxTheVool

I have a suspicion, btw, that a lot of the psychological issue had to do with it being in 3D. Imagine a technology that was absolutely perfect 3D… so sitting in a movie theatre watching this film was utterly indistinguishable from looking through a window into a 3D world in which the action was actually taking place. The first time you saw a film in that format, and there was a guy dressed in a hobbit costume standing in a street made up to look like hobbiton, I strongly suspect that you would be so distracted by the strange 3D-ness of it that you’d find it very hard to actually get swept up into the story (generic “you”).

This. I first saw The Hobbit in regular 3D on Monday, and then got back just now from seeing the 48 FPS version. The short summary is that 90% of the time there was no noticeable difference - the 48 FPS only made itself evident during the higher-speed action scenes, when every detail took on a freakish (and really very cool) clarity.

All that other stuff about sets sometimes looking too CGI or soundstage-like? The regular 3D had that problem as well, particularly in scenes around the Shire and during Smaug’s attack.

[Kinthalis]

Saw the movie yesterday.

First, the movie itself was great. I didn’t go in expecting much, but came out satisfied with what was a really cool adventure story. Something akin to some of the best D&D campaigns of my youth. Characters and story telling were well done, pacing was so so, but the action was incredibly enjoyable, and I felt like there was some interesting character growth and development. Very memorable experience/

Now, as to the HFR technical aspects of the movie…

Sorry to the 24 FPS fogies but 48 FPS is the future.

First, no god damned f’ing judder!!!

The camera panned left, the camera panned right, and we weren’t treated to a stuttery slide show, where you can’t make anything out so they might as well have just faded to black until the camera stopped moving for christ’s sake! Instead we were treated to amazing action scenes and vistas that remained clear, absolutely clear and detailed at all times. Man, the action scenes specially left me in such an awe of the fight choreography, something you just couldn’t appreciate as well at 24 FPS.

All the scenery was amazing, but Rivendell’s sets really popped. Now I’m sure the 3D also had a lot to do with that, but my god, they were amazing. It felt like I could reach out and touch every detail of that set. There wasn’t any film blur destroying the delicate, intricate touches in the environment, and the higher frame rate brought with it a sense of realism, as though we weren’t just watching a film on screen, but, rather, looking through a window into another world.

Finally, my wife, who normally suffers from motion sickness in 3D movies felt just fine watching this one. We were worried we might have to leave, and I’d have to watch the movie with some friends instead another day, but after the 3D previews (which were not HFR) everything went well for her.

So if you previously have had issues with 3D films, I’d say give this one a shot!

However, what the heck are they planning on shooting for the next two movies? It looks like their goal is within reach at the end of this one.

[manila]

Celebuzz

This is a guide/opinion piece which aligns with some of the experiences in this thread.

[Mekhazzio]

@Kinthalis

Sorry to the 24 FPS fogies but 48 FPS is the future.

I just got home from it, and this was my reaction as well. The clarity of everything made just -watching- the movie a joy. Movement let you see the extra details of a changing perspective instead of hiding them behind motion blur. I found it a wholly engrossing experience despite being what is, by now, a fairly by-the-numbers generic RPG plot, and I think the technical qualities of the movie are largely responsible for that.

As far as I’m concerned, every movie should be done like this. The cheap 3D method of the theaters leaves something to be desired when compared to the shutter glasses you can use in home 3D, but I’ll be disappointed if HFR 3D isn’t ubiquitous in 10 years or so.

[Kinthalis]

I had a frown when I came out of the theater and my wife asked if I didn’t like the movie - I explained that it wasn’t that at all, but that the thought had just popped into my mind that I’d never see the original Lord of the Rings movies in this way.

It’s the first thing I thought about, how the LOTR would have been so amazing with this technology!

[Kinthalis]

@Mekhazzio

I just got home from it, and this was my reaction as well. The clarity of everything made just -watching- the movie a joy. Movement let you see the extra details of a changing perspective instead of hiding them behind motion blur. I found it a wholly engrossing experience despite being what is, by now, a fairly by-the-numbers generic RPG plot, and I think the technical qualities of the movie are largely responsible for that.

As far as I’m concerned, every movie should be done like this. The cheap 3D method of the theaters leaves something to be desired when compared to the shutter glasses you can use in home 3D, but I’ll be disappointed if HFR 3D isn’t ubiquitous in 10 years or so.

There are new technologies coming out that are glasses free, but they are for home TV sets and I’m not sure how they work.

I wonder if it would be possible to scale them up for a theater…

[pulykamell]

It’s fascinating to me to see such a wide range and strength of opinions. I haven’t seen the movie yet, and it just makes me want to see it more. My brother, who 7 years younger than me (he’s about 30), and who works as a graphics designer and is an early adopter of new technologies hated it. Called it “garbage.” He had the same issues some other viewers in thread had, describing it as feeling like you were watching a movie in fast forward.

A friend, my age, who is more of an average consumer when it comes to visual media, thought it looked real and natural. He didn’t have any impression of feeling like the movie was in fast motion.

It just seems like some people are sensitive to it, and some aren’t. For example, it took me a couple of days to get used to a DLP television my brother bought (when we lived together) because whenever I shifted my eyes slightly, I would see rainbows. (This illustrates what I’d see quite well. I still see it from time to time, but I don’t notice it with every little stutter of my gaze. I wonder if 48 fps will be the same in this regard, that it simply takes some viewers a little bit to get used to it.

[interface2x]

I just saw it in 48FPS and it was different but in the end, I liked it. It gave everything almost a hyper HD feel where everything was amazingly clear. I didn’t see anything that felt like fast-forward or any other speed changes, though.

[BigT]

My thing is, real life is blurry. Real life does have a shallow depth of field. Real life has a lot of motion blur. I’ve always noticed that CGI is too sharp, and the only reason I don’t notice it is that films tend towards that same level of sharpness now.

Oh, and for the person asking about videogames–that’s one reason they still always look fake.

[Mr.Kobayashi]

For all those wondering what it looks like here’s a direct download link for the trailer in 48fps. YouTube and the like don’t support 48fps so you can’t get a feel of it that way.

It does look…wrong. Like actors on a set not characters in a film and that’s not the fault of the casting or set designers. Particularly noticeable when Gandalf’s introducing Sneezy, Doc, Dopey, etc. I’m glad he never tried this with LOTR, imagine what Helm’s Deep or something would have looked like.

[Kinthalis]

@Mr.Kobayashi

For all those wondering what it looks like here’s a direct download link for the trailer in 48fps. YouTube and the like don’t support 48fps so you can’t get a feel of it that way.

It does look…wrong. Like actors on a set not characters in a film and that’s not the fault of the casting or set designers. Particularly noticeable when Gandalf’s introducing Sneezy, Doc, Dopey, etc. I’m glad he never tried this with LOTR, imagine what Helm’s Deep or something would have looked like.

And I’m disappointed that the tech wasn’t available then.

It doesn’t look “wrong” so much as “different”. I swear to god, it’s like arguing that films should have stayed black and white because that’s the way it had always been before, and color looks… “wrong”.

And what would have Helms deep looked like in 48 fps?

Better.

Jeebus that part of the movie was full of motion sequences where the camera panned across huge vistas, and dramatic fight scenes… which you could not appreciate because it was a juddery, blurry mess.

There were a few scenes in the Hobbit where you could see 6 dwarfs all fighting in the background/foreground of a scene. If the movie had ran at 24 fps the main Dwarf in the foreground would have been all you could make out, and the fighting would have seemed stilted and blurry, as it usually does. Instead, in such scenes you could clearly make out every single dwarf, every single one of his movements, it was a thing of beauty.

[Dr.Strangelove]

@Mr.Kobayashi

For all those wondering what it looks like here’s a direct download link for the trailer in 48fps. YouTube and the like don’t support 48fps so you can’t get a feel of it that way.

The movie looks better than the trailer–probably because computer screens are usually 60 hz, and 48 doesn’t go into 60 evenly, so some frames get duplicated and you end up with a slightly stuttery effect.

[obfusciatrist]

@Kinthalis

It doesn’t look “wrong” so much as “different”.

Correct. And, to me, the difference looks awful. Similarly, the washed out look used by Tony Scott in the movie Domino isn’t wrong, it’s just different. And I think looked awful.

So let’s try it in reverse:

“I swear to god, it’s like arguing that films should have all gone to 3D in the '60s because that’s what was new and therefore looked “better.””

[Kinthalis]

@obfusciatrist

Correct. And, to me, the difference looks awful. Similarly, the washed out look used by Tony Scott in the movie Domino isn’t wrong, it’s just different. And I think looked awful.

So let’s try it in reverse:

“I swear to god, it’s like arguing that films should have all gone to 3D in the '60s because that’s what was new and therefore looked “better.””

False equivalency.

48 FPS is objectively better.

There is more “Temporal” resolution. More detail, no blur, no judder, smooth action.

It’s like trying to claim that the difference between SD and HD is just a matter of taste.

I think there’s an old 540p boobtube in the basement somewhere. I’ll ship you that one and you can ship me your HD TV in return

[obfusciatrist]

Let’s do this for a while. I’ll say “it isn’t” and you’ll say “it is!”

48 fps objectively has more information. I do not think this is objectively better. I’ll go along with it more realistically presenting that which is filmed. But that also is not objectively better. Unless the goal of filming a set it to produce something that looks like a set.

Park of making a film is telling the viewer what to look at. That’s why when a scene is set in Times Square it isn’t actually realistic for what it is like to be in Times Square. Sounds are altered, background movement is controlled or filmed so as to be irrelevant.

It’s ok if you think being able to simultaneously see everything in the foreground and background of a supposedly epic battle scene is great. I think it is boring.

But still, I’m not saying that 48 fps can’t be better. I’m saying that as presented by Peter Jackson in this movie it wasn’t better and since presumably he tried to do it as well as possible it doesn’t bode well for it.

Your turn. Remember, your line is: “it is!”

[Carmady]

Maybe 48 fps is in the uncanny valley of fps. Just good enough to be bad. 100 fps might look great though.

[JKilez]

@Mr.Kobayashi

For all those wondering what it looks like here’s a direct download link for the trailer in 48fps. YouTube and the like don’t support 48fps so you can’t get a feel of it that way.

Those shots look halfway decent for dailies. I am sure Jackson has properly corrected them in the finished film.

[Kinthalis]

@obfusciatrist

Let’s do this for a while. I’ll say “it isn’t” and you’ll say “it is!”

48 fps objectively has more information. I do not think this is objectively better. I’ll go along with it more realistically presenting that which is filmed. But that also is not objectively better. Unless the goal of filming a set it to produce something that looks like a set.

Park of making a film is telling the viewer what to look at. That’s why when a scene is set in Times Square it isn’t actually realistic for what it is like to be in Times Square. Sounds are altered, background movement is controlled or filmed so as to be irrelevant.

It’s ok if you think being able to simultaneously see everything in the foreground and background of a supposedly epic battle scene is great. I think it is boring.

But still, I’m not saying that 48 fps can’t be better. I’m saying that as presented by Peter Jackson in this movie it wasn’t better and since presumably he tried to do it as well as possible it doesn’t bode well for it.

Your turn. Remember, your line is: “it is!”

You’re still essentially trying to say that SD is just “different” from HD, that it’s not a matter of an objectively superior medium. After all, HD just has more information.

Ultimately, I believe that high frame rate will eventually be the future, despite the protestation of people who don’t like change. Just like the foggies who decried blurays because god damn it DVD’s are superior! And the crazies that called HD TV’s and programming “marketing gimmicks” and “fads”, they’ll come around eventually, or learn to live with it and accept the steady march of progress.

Fear not though! I’ve figured out how you can STILL experience the glory days of 24 FPS film once 48 FPS takes over!

1. Take a pair of glasses and smear a little vaseline over the lenses. Bahm! You’ve got “cinematic” blur.

2. Whenever the camera pans left or right, shake your head violently, like you’re having a seizure. Bahm! You’ve got “cinematic” judder.

See? No need to worry

[obfusciatrist]

SD is not objectively better than HD. “Better” is not an objective thing. TV is not “better” than radio, after all it is just radio with more information. But for certain purposes that additional information is not an improvement.

Your turn (and let’s try to not be so wordy, short for the objectively best “it is!”).

Maybe, someday, they’ll make a movie where the additional information is “better.” But The Hobbit, for me, was not it. Perhaps in Avatar 2 it will be. Or perhaps the additional information simply isn’t a great addition to highly fake sets and it is in indie dramas where it will really shine (not that anybody will be making those because despite it being objectively better there don’t seem to be very many experts who want to do it, but maybe that too will change).

[Rollo_Tomasi]

@Kinthalis

Just like the foggies who decried blurays because god damn it DVD’s are superior!

Who has ever said this? Sure, people have said that the improvements Blu-ray offer aren’t noticeable enough to spend the time and money to upgrade, which seems reasonable. But people saying that DVDs are technologically superior to Blu-rays? Who? Where?