Peter Jackson Wants to Change the Way You Watch Movies, The Great Hobbit Debate: 24 FPS vs 48 FPS Options

[ChessPieceFace]

Definitely won't be seeing The Hobbit to find out, though.

Why?

No interesting reason, just don't care to. Didn't read the book, don't like the whole elves-n-s*** genre, was bored by the LotR movies.

[CORVUS]

Fair enough.

[DarkeklawGW]

Most Soaps aren't filmed on Film anymore they are filmed on video tape or digital because it's a faster turn around to the editing room.

It's also much, much, much, MUCH cheaper. Filmstock tends to run hundreds of dollars per inch, IIRC.

Well that too, also a weekly show can spend more money on film because they aren't taping for a five day a week run like most soaps do. Daytime dramas don't do reruns the stories are continous so the need for cheap, fast, recordable stock is much more important than it is on a show that runs once a week doing anywhere from 12 to 26 episodes in a season.

[Darkstream]

In the opening minutes, I thought to myself "this looks like the TV department when they turn on 120Hz or TruMotion or whatever they call it". At once, it really doesn’t look like that. The smooth motion clarity is similar, but the 120Hz TV setting is the TV inventing visual information to fill in loads of completely nonexistent frames, creating the bulljive garbage you see walking through most TV departments in stores. Again, there is an element that 48fps and TruMotion share (which is where the comparison comes from), but 48 fps does not simply “look like Korean soap operas” or TruMotion-enhanced TV images. That’s a reductive, sensationalist, utterly bulljive equivocation.

yes, i want to take basebats to those tv's.

[LBD "Nytetrayn"]

I'm not especially good with resolution and frames per second and all that stuff, so forgive me if this comes off as woefully ignorant... because it probably is.

But with video games, I see a lot of talk about 60 frames per second and all being... well, people seem to treat it like the norm, and anything less is some sort of affront to humanity, or something.

So, if frames per second in movies are approaching 60 with this, does this mean that movies are going to somehow look more like some video games?

--LBD "Nytetrayn"

[Adam G]

TrueMotion and such are trash, because it's not magically creating new frames, it's just making jive up for between frames. Comparing that to this is like comparing upscalling a DVD to Blu-Ray, a comparison which has no validity.

As for 48fps, I don't think I need to even see it to say I think it's a good idea. It's giving me a more accurate view of what's going on. If it looks "fake" it's because my brain is made stupid by 24fps movies. It's closer to reality, so it's better. The "look" of cinema is an illusion created by the limitations of 24fps film technology.

[Vestras]

Oh good, I'm not the only one who hates that "Soap Opera effect" from the TruMotion feature on new TVs. It just looks unnatural. The effect of 24FPS is so commonplace that it's literally ingrained in my mind as part of the cinematic feeling.

Although I really do wonder how true 48FPS differs. I somehow doubt it looks as blatantly artificial as TruMotion.

Yea, that effect is horrific. There's also an issue of anything that has been rendered digitally. Digital rendering is still done 1 frame at a time, and any motion blur is a result of 24 fps and looks fairly natural. When you falsely accelerate things using these terrible functions, suddenly that gorgeous digital effect looks like a cheap knock off of a Harryhausen effect got slapped into your movie.

I despise the feature as it is now, but I have no objection to seeing what a properly and purposefully made 48fps can look like.

As long as it's not 3d, because HUG the JIVE out of 3d.

[skankerzero]

I can't wait.

I've hated 24fps ever since I took my film class back in the late 90s. Once it was pointed out to me, that's all I could see.

[▲ndrusi]

It will make old 24fps look as bad as SD.

So what you're saying is, I'll still think 24fps looks fine, and proponents of 48fps will take this as a personal affront.

[Zek]

I look forward to seeing this be implemented.


Now if we can get 48 fps 3D....

[PiratedTVPro]

Now if we can get 48 fps 3D....

You do. "The Hobbit" is going to be made available to exhibitors in 2D 24/48fps and 3D 24/48fps.

[Stungun]

It will make old 24fps look as bad as SD.

So what you're saying is, I'll still think 24fps looks fine, and proponents of 48fps will take this as a personal affront.

I agree with ▲ndrusi.

[Cybersnark]

Me too, actually. And I work in film/TV/new media.

[Zek]

Now if we can get 48 fps 3D....

You do. "The Hobbit" is going to be made available to exhibitors in 2D 24/48fps and 3D 24/48fps.

Well then! Looks like I shall be enjoying The Hobbit then!

[D.M]

Don't wanna movies with TV studio feel.
CGI effects will suffer the most as they will look even faker with bigger frame rate (unnatural motion becoming more obvious).

This post has been edited by D.M: Apr 25 2012, 05:08 PM

[Cheetimus Primal]

Welcome to the Allspark!
We have grumpy old men!

[D.M]

TruMotion or whatever else it is called sucks because it's making up frames to fill in between the real ones. 48fps is the future unlike 3D. It will make old 24fps look as bad as SD.

30fps didn't made 24fps look bad, so why should this?
In fact, I'm not sure if anyone will be able to tell the difference between 30fps and 48fps.

Welcome to the Allspark!
We have grumpy old men!

I'm younger than you. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/icon-blitz.gif)

This post has been edited by D.M: Apr 25 2012, 05:17 PM

[TM2-Megatron]

Welcome to the Allspark!
We have grumpy old men!

Or just differing opinions. Honestly, you're taking the dislike of TruMotion/MotionFlow/AquoMotion/etc. pretty personally. It's just a cheapo DSP algorithm on a chip somewhere in your TV; its feelings aren't going to be hurt, lol.

This post has been edited by TM2-Megatron: Apr 25 2012, 05:16 PM

[Cheetimus Primal]

THANK GOD!
Every time I see a movie I like I think to myself, "I can't wait to get this on Bluray so it'll look better and I can see everything more clearly."
I welcome this change wholeheartedly.

Because you don't own one. When I got my TV it was so odd yet with Bluray movies it was transfixing. It took me a while to get used to it but once I did I was in love.
Of course I adjust the framerate depending on what I'm watching, that only makes sense.

Believe me, watching the right stuff in the comfort of your home is grand. It makes going to the movies a tad lamer.

So much hate.
*shrugs and goes back to enjoying his TV*

True motion tends to make things look like they're moving more fluidly but it's still 2-D so it comes off as just odd. And when the frame rate is already low such as with none bluray movies it looks extra odd when the camera pans side to side as that tends to have a better frame rate than the film itself. If you're not used to it the effect can be jarring.
I expect it's really uncomfortable for those prone to motion sickness but I'm not one of those people so I'm just guessing.

Welcome to the Allspark!
We have grumpy old men!

So participating in the discussion from a viewpoint differing from yours and tacking on a joke (because I've never been known to joke around at all ever in the history of the Allspark) is taking it personally.

Noted. Thanks for telling me my opinion.

[Aberration]

Now if we can get 48 fps 3D....

You do. "The Hobbit" is going to be made available to exhibitors in 2D 24/48fps and 3D 24/48fps.

This concerns me... I already have to jump through hoops to find 2D showings (well, that's overstating it, but basically, the theaters near me will usually have the first showing of the day in 2D, and that's it), and now I have to factor framerate into that too. Hopefully Fandango will be diligent about sorting it out.