[shagg_187]

I still crack up when I think back to the first time I saw "TrueMotion" in action on a TV at Best Buy. Batman Begins was playing, and seeing Bale in rubber bat costume at that level of clarity made it completely hilarious. I hope that movies that are actually made to be displayed at higher frame rates do a better job of hiding the figurative seams and zippers.

Except this won't be like "TrueMotion". That's a software extrapolating the framerate to 120Hz or 240Hz from 30fps. That's a big change especially when the original medium doesn't have the extra frames and are software-generated.

This, however, has the source running at 48p so the problem won't be massive. Adjusting will be required though.

[Snake]

As long as it doesn't have that soap opera/80s Doctor Who look I'll be fine.

I kinda wonder if some of the complaints I've seen are just based on what was being filmed rather than what they were filming with. The teaser for The Hobbit had a few scenes that looked like obvious sets, and "sets looking like sets" is one of the complaints I've seen about the 48fps. But it was like that at times in 24fps to me, so I don't know what to think.

edit: I see this has already been covered.

[Marty Chinn]

You can't cut the cord and get ESPN3.

I thought some people had said they watched ESPN3 online as a cord cutting alternative. I haven't cut the cord, but either way ESPN3 looks like shit and is at 30hz.

Because the "Soap Opera" is mainly visual elements incoherence (dark background and direct light on actors) in the frame. The (not so) higher framerate could argueably be influential only for the fact you are seeing more of it. Sole framerate discussions is like discussing grain on film.

I'm not talking about dark background and direct light on actors though. I can see the difference even if we remove soap operas from the equation. I have an eye for 60hz vs 30hz video and there are other examples out there besides soap operas and has been for decades. It stands out. In some cases I like it, in other cases I would not. Like sports, they have to be 60hz or I'll try to find another source.

[Branduil]

I really wonder how many of these we're going to have until people realize that suddenly applying it to a hollywood full theatrical production isn't going to change the look out of magic. We've had examples for decades of what 60hz does to the look of something outside of a soap opera.

You mean like how 60 fps games look great compared to lower framerates?

Or how sporting events at 60 fps look better?

[jett]

I have the same RED camera used to shoot The Hobbit. I can do a test shot for you guys at 48fps, but is there a video provider online that can display video at that frame rate?

I hope you come through with this. :P Don't go too crazy on the bitrate and file size, 720p would be enough.

[Marty Chinn]

You mean like how 60 fps games look great compared to lower framerates? Or how sporting events at 60 fps look better?

See two perfect examples of something other than a soap opera where you can see the frame difference. The thing is, there is a time and a place. I want my live stuff to look like 60 fps, I want my games to be 60fps, I want my sitcoms, dramas, and other fictional stories to be 24 or 30hz. Does everyone here want things like Lost and 24 to look like Family Ties?

[neoanarch]

Upload it to mediafire. Current PC monitor can display up to 60fps. Record some city sequences. I'll convert it to 24p so people can see the comparison, I suppose.

Minus.com allows any kind of file and up to 2gb. Uploading it to youtube or vimeo will force it thru their converters.

[Vire]

Sounds awful.

The CGI will become very noticable at 60 FPS. This isn't like games where higher framerate = better.

You will most certainly lose out on that cinematic feeling and it'll suddenly feel like a cheap Soap Opera episode or some reality TV show.

Ugh, what a terrible decision.

[animlboogy]

This will seem strange for a while, and of course I'm concerned about that. But it'll be nice to have wide panning shots that don't look awkwardly choppy in the theater anymore.

[Igo]

By the way, and it's a big information, the footage was UNGRADED. Any movie in raw footage looks cheap. So, seeing positive reactions already is a good sign, it will look massively better obviously oncer color graded and finished.

I figured as much, but is there confirmation of this somewhere?

Aren't most films shot on video made to look like film in post anyway?

[Wiggum2007]

Sounds awful. The CGI will become very noticable at 60 FPS. This isn't like games where higher framerate = better. You will most certainly lose out on that cinematic feeling and it'll suddenly feel like a cheap Soap Opera episode or some reality TV show. Ugh, what a terrible decision.

Haven't the impressions been talking about how the CG blends with the sets much better at the higher framerate?

[Mudkips]

I still have no idea why he chose 48 fps instead of 60.

On a 60 Hz or 120 Hz display, 48 fps is going to get fucked. 60 Hz will work perfectly.
And dropping the 60 down to 30 (or 30 per eye) for BluRay or whateverthefuck consumer distribution you want still works out perfectly. 48 down to 24 doesn't for 60 Hz displays, and 30 is still a noticeably improved frame rate over 24.

[bud]

This undeniable "reality" kept pulling me out of the movie rather than immersing me fully into its world as the Lord of the Rings films did; the very fantasy element, the artifice of it all (whether it's the wigs, fake beards or CG monsters) was plainly, at times painfully, evident.

this is kinda worrying. the trailer looked artificial at times as well.

[ElFly]

Panning in movies looks super terrible, even in 2D movies.

There's no reason to stick with 24fps at this point.

[Raistlin]

48fps wtf? why not 60? this is a ploy to sell more 240hz tvs :l

Standard digital projectors don't support 60Hz at the necessary resolution.

Is 48fps something that can be released on current home video or is this the first movie that will force me to see it in the theater in 2 years?

In theory, I suspect they could utilize frame packing a la 3D, and you would simply not wear your glasses.

Doesn't 48p means 24p for each eye on 3D. If so, sign me up. If not then no thanks.

24p per eye for 3D if I am correct.

24p? 48p? Damn, that's some pretty low resolution :D. I assume you mean fps.

Regardless, that's not the case. It's 48fps per eye. Otherwise that would imply current 3D was 12fps per eye ... which would be an abomination.

[THE-Pink-Dagger]

Sounds awful. The CGI will become very noticable at 60 FPS. This isn't like games where higher framerate = better. You will most certainly lose out on that cinematic feeling and it'll suddenly feel like a cheap Soap Opera episode or some reality TV show. Ugh, what a terrible decision.

Au contraire, even the negative reactions are acknowledging that the CGI looks much more real in 48 fps, they said that the troll scene and Gollum looked incredible, like they had a weight to them and were THERE.

[Vire]

Haven't the impressions been talking about how the CG blends with the sets much better at the higher framerate?

Nope

It looked like an old Doctor Who episode, or a videotaped BBC TV production. It was as shocking as when The Twilight Zone made the boneheaded decision to switch from film to tape one season, and where perfectly good stories were ruined by that aesthetic. Here, there were incredibly sharp, realistic images where colors seem more vivid and brighter than on film, but the darker scenes were especially murky (and the 3D only dims that image even more). Frankly, it was jarring to see Gandalf, Bilbo or the dwarves in action against CG-created characters or even to move quickly down a rocky passage. The whipping of a camera pan or the blur of movement was unsettling. While 48fps may create a more realistic, "you are there" picture quality, it actually works against The Hobbit from the 10 minutes of footage we saw. This undeniable "reality" kept pulling me out of the movie rather than immersing me fully into its world as the Lord of the Rings films did; the very fantasy element, the artifice of it all (whether it's the wigs, fake beards or CG monsters) was plainly, at times painfully, evident. There was none of the painterly gentleness that film offers a fantasy film, as was so beautifully the case with the original (shot on film) LOTR trilogy. I fully expect the 48fps issue to become the much-talked about "mumbling Bane" flap to come out of CinemaCon.

I can't believe they would make such a mistake. Such a film making no no.

Almost amateurish.

[THE-Pink-Dagger]

Nope

Well, all of the others, and especially Slashfilm video reaction say the total opposite plus it's not even finished.

Oh and IGN: ROFL.

[Allard]

See two perfect examples of something other than a soap opera where you can see the frame difference. The thing is, there is a time and a place. I want my live stuff to look like 60 fps, I want my games to be 60fps, I want my sitcoms, dramas, and other fictional stories to be 24 or 30hz. Does everyone here want things like Lost and 24 to look like Family Ties?

There is a time and place for everything, if you are cheap with your set design, then 24 FPS can hide your blemishes. That's the thing, big 'event' movies like the Hobbit or anything with an ounce of production value would likely benefit from higher FPS. In one of those impressions they talked about how pure computer generated creatures felt more real and had more weight because suddenly their motion was more in line with a person's reality. Basically practical 'tricks' of cinema are going to become more obvious but the careful and well placed special effect will become even more glorious and immersive. I think its going to come to a point where most of the blockbusters or period pieces that involve real locales are going to be using higher FPS predominantly but lower production/cheaper movies will opt for 24 FPS to hide cheapness.

[Loofy]

Douglas Trumbull was advocating that future movies use both 24fps and 48fps. Theres no reason to stick with 1 throughout the whole thing. 48 for action, 24 for dialogue etc.

[Draconian]

Well, all of the others, and especially Slashfilm video reaction say the total opposite plus it's not even finished.

Don't waste your time man. People just flock to find the opinion that agrees with the one that they had before they came to this thread and pull a big "SEE I TOLD YOU GUYS" and ignore all the other positive ones.

[Vire]

Douglas Trumbull was advocating that future movies use both 24fps and 48fps. Theres no reason to stick with 1 throughout the whole thing. 48 for action, 24 for dialogue etc.

That's an even worse idea.

I don't think you realize how incredibly jarring that would be. A movie should be singular and coherent.

[rexor0717]

I personally like the real life feeling of higher FPS in film, but I understand how it could be jarring.

[Doc Holliday]

Horrible idea! i will never watch porn that looks like film and I refuse to watch film that looks like porn!

[THE-Pink-Dagger]

That's an even worse idea. I don't think you realize how incredibly jarring that would be. A movie should be singular and coherent.

Yes indeed.

[Loxley]

Good to see IGN with their usual amount of hyperbole.

I sort of wish all these damn blogs would get over the 48 FPS for two seconds and talk about the actual scenes they were shown.

[shagg_187]

24p? 48p? Damn, that's some pretty low resolution :D. I assume you mean fps. Regardless, that's not the case. It's 48fps per eye. Otherwise that would imply current 3D was 12fps per eye ... which would be an abomination.

Gaming term: FPS
TV term: Hz
Cinema term: p

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/24p

[Marty Chinn]

There is a time and place for everything, if you are cheap with your set design, then 24 FPS can hide your blemishes. That's the thing, big 'event' movies like the Hobbit or anything with an ounce of production value would likely benefit from higher FPS. In one of those impressions they talked about how pure computer generated creatures felt more real and had more weight because suddenly their motion was more in line with a person's reality. Basically practical 'tricks' of cinema are going to become more obvious but the careful and well placed special effect will become even more glorious and immersive. I think its going to come to a point where most of the blockbusters or period pieces that involve real locales are going to be using higher FPS predominantly but lower production/cheaper movies will opt for 24 FPS to hide cheapness.

The thing is, there are several examples of the difference between 24/30 and 60 hz that exist now and have for decades that we can use as reference. Everything else is that you're suggesting is baseless speculation at this point. People are advocating what you're saying but where is there an example of this being true? If there isn't one that is readily available publicly, how can you be so sure that it's true? Evidence shows more weight to the former being the result than the latter at this point in time.

I forgot my go to reference of proof but someone else brought it up here. The Twilight Zone. There is a perfect example of a show being done at both framerates and the difference is jarring. There are other shows that did this too, and those are the best example of what I'm talking about.

[Allard]

Gaming term: FPS TV term: Hz Cinema term: p http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/24p

In that case its 48p :P

Its 48 FPS per eye. Most cinema screens (at least in the US) that do 3D use polarized lens technology which shows two completely separate projected images and as such each projected image would be 48 frames per second.

[Flying_Phoenix]

The best part of this higher frames per second argument is that maybe 1 out of the 100 people in the argument have actually seen film at 48 or 60fps.

And no animation doesn't count.

[Vire]

Good to see IGN with their usual amount of hyperbole. I sort of wish all these damn blogs would get over the 48 FPS for two seconds and talk about the actual scenes they were shown.

I don't think you realize how big of a deal this is. Movies have been shown at 24 frames per second for nearly 80 years.

It warrants discussion.

[nomis]

All our lives, low framerate has been a crutch to hide imperfections and now people call it "cinematic".

Especially the dude who said the sets looked more fake than actually being in them... what the fuck? The lack of blur with 48p is objectively nearer to how your eyes saw those sets in person.

This backlash is all so predictable it's a bit sad. There's literally no technical reason why 24p should look "good" to us, except that it's what we're accustomed to.

[Solo]

Good lord there is some serious misinformation floating around. A $250M 48/72 FPS blockbuster isn't going to look like that shitty motion interpolation feature on TVs. Jesus christ.

[cutmeamango]

What TV shows you guys know they were shot at 60 fps?

[polyh3dron]

completely non-cinematic

haha oh wow

[Dynamite Shikoku]

If its anything like that trumotion shit I will never watch it

[Vire]

What TV shows you guys know they were shot at 60 fps?

Nearly every reality tv show, sporting event, soap opera, late night show are all shot at higher framerate.

Shows like Bones or CSI, Law and Order, Dexter or any drama are all shot at 24 fps.

[shagg_187]

What TV shows you guys know they were shot at 60 fps?

A lot of TV shows are shot at 60i, thus the soap opera feel.

In fact, mostly all were shot at 60i until HD era kicked in and they started filming at 24p. Think of 80's news channel.

[Utako]

I was optimistic before. Now I am insanely crazed with hype. This is going to be better than Avatar in terms of upgrading the movie industry (and forcing it to upgrade).

Thanks for posting this.

[Marty Chinn]

Good lord there is some serious misinformation floating around. A $250M 48/72 FPS blockbuster isn't going to look like that shitty motion interpolation feature on TVs. Jesus christ.

And yet why does that shitty motion interpolation feature at certain times look just like every other 60hz source out there? I agree motion interpolation is shitty, but it gives you a slight hint to what that will look like with real movies.

[neoanarch]

Most tv shows are shot at 30fps a minority at 24fps. Only rarely do sporting events get broadcast at 60fps.

[nomis]

Good lord there is some serious misinformation floating around. A $250M 48/72 FPS blockbuster isn't going to look like that shitty motion interpolation feature on TVs. Jesus christ.

Some of these movie bloggers don't deserve an audience. A camera capturing twice as many real frames of the action does not fucking look like an algorithm in your TV making up fake frames to plug in between the real ones. Not to mention that "TruMotion" and the like actually ADD ghosting, not remove it.

But nope, I'm seeing a lot of "IT JUST LOOKS SMOOTHER AND I DON'T LIKE IT".

[Messofanego]

This might make sense for a found footage movie or docu-drama, but why a goddamn fantasy film?!

What was Peter Jackson thinking? Will there be 24fps screenings? lololol

[Marty Chinn]

Most tv shows are shot at 30fps a minority at 24fps. Only rarely do sporting events get broadcast at 60fps.

Rarely? Sports are almost always at 60hz. In fact I hate watching sports when it's not 60hz.

[Solo]

And yet why does that shitty motion interpolation feature at certain times look just like every other 60hz source out there? I agree motion interpolation is shitty, but it gives you a slight hint to what that will look like with real movies.

No, it really doesn't. One is real, one isn't.

[Muffdraul]

Have you seen it?

The Hobbit? No. 48 fps cinema footage? Yes.

There's no denying it looks weird until your visual cortex adjusts.

[Deadly Cyclone]

I have motion plus on my Samsung TV, so I think I know what they are talking about. (although I'm sure it is different with a movie to some degree) The motion plus gives everything a Soap Opera looks in my opinion. very jarring. I am unsure about the decision now. Much rather 4k than 48fps.

[Raistlin]

For everyone freaking out about 48fps 'not being cinematic' ... that isn't inherently true. Yes reducing the active 'shutter' time by half will give things a different look, but that doesn't actually have to occur - on quality analog and digital cameras, it is adjustable. A director could quite easily increase the capture time to bring back the 'film look', but still benefit from the reduced judder. Similarly, motion blur could always be added in post.

Long-term, I suspect most directors will find a happy medium. They will increase the capture time a bit from default, but not so much as to lower temporal resolution as much as traditional film. That would yield a crisper, smoother image ... but still have a bit of that 'film gauze'.

Gaming term: FPS TV term: Hz Cinema term: p http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/24p

WTF ... I must be losing my mind. Nothing to see here regarding p/i



That said, fps is not inherently a gaming term, just as Hz is not inherently a TV term. Hz is a refresh rate, while fps (or p) is a frame rate of the underlying content. They are not specific to a type of display nor to a type of content. Nor are they directly tied together (though they are indirectly for practical purposes in most situations).

[Draconian]

All of these "What was Peter Jackson thinking?" posts remind me of the "What was James Cameron thinking?" hilarity after the debut trailer of Avatar when the initial response was "lol blue people."

[Marty Chinn]

No, it really doesn't.

It does when you factor that along with soap operas, sports, live events, video games, sitcoms, The Twilight Zone, and so forth. It's not any single example that proves the point; it's taking all the examples and finding the common factor between them and that common factor is consistent in the visual look.

With motion interpolation, it looks like shit because it's all over the place and inconsistent, but with the right footage, and for a brief period of time, gives you the illusion of what it will kind of look like. I hate motion interpolation for a number of reasons including the inconsistency and changing the intended look of the source.