You called that some people might be put off by seeing something they're not used to?Man, I called it. Just exactly as I feared.
You called that some people might be put off by seeing something they're not used to?Man, I called it. Just exactly as I feared.
You called that some people might be put off by seeing something they're not used to?
That's the best way to make sure it is never accepted.
I hope these mofos do a public preview or release a 48fps trailer or something. I really want to see what this looks like. Pre-judgement is already beginning.
It certainly doesn't impact your enjoyment as much as it does in gaming, but I honestly don't think I'd be miss it. I can only imagine 48fps would be a complete improvement.
There are SO many examples where I've watched a film and the framerate has taken me out of the moment. I'll take that being fixed over a huge leap in CGI or something.
Wonder if the same thing happened with the shift from black&white to color?
No, I called what it was going to look like and the initial impressions have confirmed that fear.
If someone's backyard looks like they have Smaug as a pet, I can't wait.Yes, I can't wait for movies to look like someone's backyard home videos. I hope this trend dies even faster than 3D.
Not a really obscure film, just not my precious Hobbit.
Something like Skyfall maybe.
So the one negative impression overrides the two or three positive ones? You came into this thread looking to have your opinion validated.
So the one negative impression overrides the two or three positive ones? You came into this thread looking to have your opinion validated.
Many people knew it would look like a daytime soap the minute the 48fps news came out, so I'm not surprised at this at all.
It's a shame a filmmaker of Jackson's caliber has fallen for the Cameron-ization of film trend, which is more focused on making tech demos than good films.
Many people knew it would look like a daytime soap the minute the 48fps news came out, so I'm not surprised at this at all.
It's a shame a filmmaker of Jackson's caliber has fallen for the Cameron-ization of film trend, which is more focused on making tech demos than good films.
No, I called what it was going to look like and the initial impressions have confirmed that fear.
The most realistic reactions talk of the fact that it needs some getting used to, and that it looks so real, like you're there, I'm pretty sure that once people are used to it, they won't look back. Getting rid of that fu cking 24 fps motion blur and strobing effect will be a godsend, enough of those blurry pans.
Many people knew it would look like a daytime soap the minute the 48fps news came out, so I'm not surprised at this at all.
It's a shame a filmmaker of Jackson's caliber has fallen for the Cameron-ization of film trend, which is more focused on making tech demos than good films.
Blurry action scenes and judders during camera pans are needed for good filmmaking?Many people knew it would look like a daytime soap the minute the 48fps news came out, so I'm not surprised at this at all.
It's a shame a filmmaker of Jackson's caliber has fallen for the Cameron-ization of film trend, which is more focused on making tech demos than good films.
Why would lower fidelity in anything be preferable?I understand the technical issues with 24fps, but at the same time, I don't want everything looking like a live broadcast. We don't need to wait for the future, we can see it now on TV. Not everything should look like 60 hz that we watch on TV. Think of the shows you watch now, the ones that are 60 hz and the ones that aren't, and do you honestly prefer that every show you watch should be 60 hz?
WTF?
It is a really fascinating psychological phenomenon, why we tend to "prefer" 24fps for cinematic presentation.
Many people knew it would look like a daytime soap the minute the 48fps news came out, so I'm not surprised at this at all.
It's a shame a filmmaker of Jackson's caliber has fallen for the Cameron-ization of film trend, which is more focused on making tech demos than good films.
The most realistic reactions talk of the fact that it needs some getting used to, and that it looks so real, like you're there, I'm pretty sure that once people are used to it, they won't look back. Getting rid of that fu cking 24 fps motion blur and strobing effect will be a godsend, enough of those blurry pans.
will this help 3d movies look...better less blurry / annoying?
It is a really fascinating psychological phenomenon, why we tend to "prefer" 24fps for cinematic presentation.
Will 3D at 48fps fix the strobing and jitteriness that has plagued almost every 3D film i've seen to date? The only exception has been The Lion King 3D, and while it's the best 3D experience i've had, it wasn't perfect either.
I do really enjoy 3D when all the factors align perfectly, so i'm really hoping the higher fps will address the issues I have.
I wonder what would happen if you asked a general audience about it after seeing it if they didn't know it was filmed at 48fps. I'd bet the majority wouldn't notice any difference.
24p per eye for 3D if I am correct.
It always pains and entertains me to read that "soap opera" effect is due framerate.
Crude lighting set/design and camera framing (editing too and even set quality sometimes) are responsible for it.
It's a significant difference. People would notice.
Blurry action scenes and judders during camera pans are needed for good filmmaking?
Why would lower fidelity in anything be preferable?
Wow at those impressions not nearly as positive as I imagined.
It's a significant difference. People would notice.