60fps or GTFO.


But seriously, that could be cool. But wouldn't the movie then have the 'soap opera' effect where everything looks like it's moving a bit too quickly?

Theaters with RealD projection, for example, can actually do far more at 144fps.

Haha where did you hear that from?

IMAX projection systems use water cooled lamps.

My step father told me many years ago. And this is all i could find with google.

http://community.discovery.com/eve/f.../m/87519430501

http://marketingmallika.blogspot.com...me-effect.html

I just LOL'ed in the middle of a teleconference... [rofl]

Forget /thread

/internet [rofl]

Yeah, it sure will (BTW, it's not that it's moving too quickly—it's just that the tilts/pans/movements are too sharp). And soap operas are only shot 5.97 FPS faster than movies (in the US)—imagine how strange a feature film at 48fps is going to look. Ugh.

I'm not sure I really grasp the point of shooting The Hobbit at 48fps. The more you reduce motion blur, the less natural a film looks to the human eye. And ironically enough, filmmakers have been striving for years to find affordable digital equipment that allows them to shoot at 24fps vs. the common 29.97 NTSC framerate. Why? because those extra frames cheapen the shot and eliminate the cinematic feel.

I really wouldn't be surprised if the camera work in The Hobbit ends up reminding people of a made-for-tv B-movie.[no]

For the home release at least you could output 23.976 and just watch every other frame, without the blur I can only guess motion will be worse than having shot it at 24.

eugh that's pretty much what you said, I'm going to **** off to bed.

It's only a matter of what we are used to isn't it? The more FPS the better the picture and we can finally get rid of these stuttering sweeping scenes. Drives me nuts. Can someone with more knowledge comment on this?

EDIT - saw Serials comment about this. Is it really more natural to the human eye with 24 FPS? I am aware of the whole motion blur thing, but howcome sweeping scenes still look like stutterfest?

I agree with this 100%

Remember when they would release a movie stright to TV and it would be shot in NTSC (or PAL) interlaced (which is similar to watching either 60 or 50fps, but not really?). There was always something about those films that looked 'cheap' regardless of how much effort or budget they put into it. Like a Stephen King mini-series. The 24fps used in most films has been embedded in our psyche for over 75 years, and even with today's 'motion flow' televisions, the footage just looks cheap. You will be hard pressed to find any other directors as keen as Jackson to abandon 24fps in favour of anything higher.

I think the trouble with Jackson is, he is clutching at straws to find the next big thing, and ever since getting his hand on the Red Epic (the camera they will be shooting the film in, in 5K as well!) he has gotten a bit carried away.

Edison, back when cinema was young wanted all films to be shot at 48fps. The reason why it was not adopted was because of cost, and because it was simply not necessary. Cameron wanted to use it for Avatar, but only because it would make his 3D look better, which I can sort of agree with.... but for normal 2D cinema, it will look horrible.

I agree. If you watch a Blu Ray on a 120hz TV it looks cheesy/fake.

That is if MCFI is engaged which is essentially morphing (see: making up) frames and inserting them between the actual video frames, which causes the motion to sway and this is all for the sake of maintaining motion resolution on LCDs. (This can be disabled on all 100/120/200/240hz displays)

While a video shot at a higher framerate will have that soap opera look, it won't be quite as bad as TVs with MCFI enabled.

I'd have to say that I am quite used to watching everything at 120hz on my new monitor after using it for a few weeks. Doesn't cheapen the look of Blu-Rays at all.

I'm sure most people will hate it, though.

So the movie is about frodo and samwise getting drunk and sleep with some large woman? [help]


in 48fps.

Post of the year!!
[thumbup][thumbup]

Apples and oranges. The refresh rate of your display is a totally different topic. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...s/biggrin1.gif

It's not like anyone stays awake for these movies anyways.
http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ies/laugh1.gif

So true. I dont think I made it through any of the three in theaters without going to sleep for a little bit.

Still got bait on your lines?

I think it's OK for animations like Toy Story, but this, I don't know. I'll wait and see.

Agreed also. there's a reason 24p is such a sought after frame rate in the digital world - it looks cinematic. 48fps is going to look so plasticcy and digital. I hope this doesn't become standard.

Hell yes!