48fps is better max'd out http://maxgif.com/mf
I take it you haven't seen any sets in real life? Without 'movie magic' they look pretty shoddy.
PJ puts the work into his sets though so he's as good a guy as any to try it.
Because you will still need to make 24p versions of the film for several reason and that is very hard to do on a 60p source whereas it's almost trivial from 48p.So why 48 and not 60? And 60 per eye in 3d?
I mena the 24 is because old tech isn't it? We can see much higher that that, so why not jump to something much higher instead of just doubling it?
ITT: People using what 48fps is on paper to tell others that they're wrong about not liking it.
This has gone on in every single thread regarding 48/60fps. "You say you don't like it? That's not true!".
There are a whole lot of people that need to eat a lot of crow if I could be bothered to search old posts.
Nah. It's the "48 can't possibly look good!" arguments that make no sense.
True, but for the most part that argument didn't exist until it was a response to the former.The "48 can't possibly look bad!" arguments are equally ridiculous.
True, but for the most part that argument didn't exist until it was a response to the former.
It's quite obvious what side was the aggressor here.
There will be no "crow" eating. Some people will like it and some won't. There is not "right" I think. Look at the initial posts and the tone of negaitivity "just like I thought" and stuff like that. The extremes on both sides.
48 will not give anybody cancer.
it existed way before PJ
nice try though
Too much detail exposes flaws. PJ makes elaborate sets so it might be ok.Are we talking Motion interpolation or the soap opera effect here or is 48fps much different? Looking around thats all I am getting from it unless PJ has a different method, the set does look like you are a live audience watching a play..
Reiko at B3D asked me to post this link to help show the improvements over 24fps.
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/362094116/The_Hobbit_An_Unexpected_Journey_Trailer.mp4.html
This is an argument that makes sense against the higher framerate. I experienced something similar recently with the Aliens Blu ray, the clean image and higher resolution made the film look like absolute garbage, such incredibly bad props and sets, like a cheap TV show. Of course it would have looked like this in the cinema in 1986 too, but for many years the film's bad quality visuals were hidden to me behind lower resolution and interlacing etc.Too much detail exposes flaws.
That looks like 30fps montage through a motion interpolation filter, artifacts and all. Motion interpolation never looks as good as true 60fps, on the contrary, it's too distracting.
It's from the trailer so it's from 24fps to 60fps conversion which adds all the joys of uneven scaling of framerate.That looks like 30fps montage through a motion interpolation filter, artifacts and all. Motion interpolation never looks as good as true 60fps, on the contrary, it's too distracting.
This is an argument that makes sense against the higher framerate. I experienced something similar recently with the Aliens Blu ray, the clean image and higher resolution made the film look like absolute garbage, such incredibly bad props and sets, like a cheap TV show. Of course it would have looked like this in the cinema in 1986 too, but for many years the film's bad quality visuals were hidden to me behind lower resolution and interlacing etc.
That looks like 30fps montage through a motion interpolation filter, artifacts and all. Motion interpolation never looks as good as true 60fps, on the contrary, it's too distracting.
Reiko said:Could you please tell Wonko_C that the framerate is actually 60fps. This isn't no 30fps interpolation. It's a pure 60hz vid.
Even better... I'll prove it.
Look at this Avengers clip I interpolated.
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/362...on-Man-vs-Thor---Film-Clip---(60fps).mp4.html
30fps cannot replicate that. Period.
Please send that over.
This is an argument that makes sense against the higher framerate. I experienced something similar recently with the Aliens Blu ray, the clean image and higher resolution made the film look like absolute garbage, such incredibly bad props and sets, like a cheap TV show. Of course it would have looked like this in the cinema in 1986 too, but for many years the film's bad quality visuals were hidden to me behind lower resolution and interlacing etc.
/QUOTE]
I haven't seen the aliens BR yet but I did see it in the theater and it looked great. It is a dark film with a lot of film grain though, so if they added a lot of noise reduction and edge enhancement to the BR that might cause it to look weird to you now. That is a problem with the production of the BR though, not with the original theatrical print.
I detest the 120 frame motion artifact and find that 3D makes a lot of scenes look cheap and "toy like", so I really hope they do a traditional 24 fps 2D version that will match up well with the LOTR cinematic style.
I'm on the phone with 1&1 right now...
He asked me to pass another message:
Reiko at B3D asked me to post this link to help show the improvements over 24fps.
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/362094116/The_Hobbit_An_Unexpected_Journey_Trailer.mp4.html
He asked me to pass another message:
48fps is better max'd out http://maxgif.com/mf
Nothing so far, it seems like we may have to wait until the film itself. Although, there is rumoured to be a 48fps version of the trailer to be shown in France.Has anyone posted a link here in this thread of the Hobbit in 48fps? I mean, is there a trailer or a clip to see what this movie will look like in 48fps?
Higher framerates are intrinsically better. Any talk of loss of "cinematic" quality is because we've associated film with lower framerates for so long.
Man, I called it. Just exactly as I feared.
This is an argument that makes sense against the higher framerate. I experienced something similar recently with the Aliens Blu ray, the clean image and higher resolution made the film look like absolute garbage, such incredibly bad props and sets, like a cheap TV show.
What makes Hugo a benchmark for anything?Filmmakers are learning by experimenting with that. Hugo is still the absolutely benchmark.
Most theaters aren't showing it in 48Are all the showings of the Hobbit in Imax 3d 48 FPS? I went to see it for a second time at my theater on their imax screen, it looked the same as the 2d, 24 FPS version to me.
I can tell the difference between framrates in games, maybe it is just a subtle effect or my theater wasn't showing it in 48 fps?
Are all the showings of the Hobbit in Imax 3d 48 FPS? I went to see it for a second time at my theater on their imax screen, it looked the same as the 2d, 24 FPS version to me.
I can tell the difference between framrates in games, maybe it is just a subtle effect or my theater wasn't showing it in 48 fps?
Are all the showings of the Hobbit in Imax 3d 48 FPS? I went to see it for a second time at my theater on their imax screen, it looked the same as the 2d, 24 FPS version to me.
I can tell the difference between framrates in games, maybe it is just a subtle effect or my theater wasn't showing it in 48 fps?
Only some imax theaters will be 48fps.Are all the showings of the Hobbit in Imax 3d 48 FPS? I went to see it for a second time at my theater on their imax screen, it looked the same as the 2d, 24 FPS version to me.
I can tell the difference between framrates in games, maybe it is just a subtle effect or my theater wasn't showing it in 48 fps?
.
Having seen a fair share of 3D films in theater, I then started to realize that the 48 fps DOES make a difference. It's embarrassing, but there was a point when a character shot an arrow at the screen and it made me jump. Suddenly I'm eight years old watching Captain EO at Disneyworld again.
I'm having a hard time understanding this, really.
I don't understand how simply seeing more of a set makes it look cheaper. How does seeing twice as many still images of a set in a second make it look cheaper than it would with only half as many frames? The frames themselves don't have a clearer image.
Oh!! There's a thread for this.
For some reason, I don't mind the hfr when the camera is zoomed out. But it sort of weird when the scene is close up, the movement looks too fast. The clarity in hfr is mindblowing though
I kept thinking how much better hfr movies would be if the screen is 180 degrees enveloping us like the 3d disney ride that I saw in hongkong.