48 fps! — Page 5

Just got done watching The Hobbit HFR/3D/Imax.

Wow! So, as can be seen in the first pages of this thread, I was all for the 48fps thing and thought it would be really neat. Then reviews started pouring in with severely negative reactions to it. Seemed a lot of us in this thread that saw it in 48fps really didn't like the experience much.

I thought it was amazing. It took me Peter Jackson's estimated 10 minutes or so to get used to the effect, and from there it was just spectacular. I don't even like 3D as a whole, I think it is typically a really gimmicky thing, but this was just gorgeous.

48fps was very different, it really did feel soap opera-esque for the first little bit, but once I got into the movie and stopped focusing and thinking about the frame rate, it made for a very visually appealing enjoyable experience. During the riddles in the dark scene, I felt like I could imagine myself being in the scene with the characters, which is remarkable considering one of the character is a computer drawn animation. In the Two Towers and The Return of the King, Gollum never really looked that real. I mean, he looked great, I felt they did a good job on him, but he still felt like a CG character. During that scene in The Hobbit, it was almost kind of freaky how organic he looked, I know the original Gollum was a product of decade old technology, so of course he would look better now, but I really think the more fluid motion of 48fps contributed to this.

I can't remember the last time I saw a 3D movie, but it has been a while. I often hear people talk about how awful 2D movies converted to 3D look over movies filmed in 3D (and how some conversions are better than others). I realized what they were talking about when watching the trailer for Jurassic Park 3D, something I was feeling a little excited for, if for no other reason than to see Jurassic Park on the big screen again. The trailer for it looked pretty bad, the 3D effect looked really forced, unlike the other 3D trailers shown.

CP3S said:

Just got done watching The Hobbit HFR/3D/Imax.

Wow! So, as can be seen in the first pages of this thread, I was all for the 48fps thing and thought it would be really neat. Then reviews started pouring in with severely negative reactions to it. Seemed a lot of us in this thread that saw it in 48fps really didn't like the experience much.

I thought it was amazing. It took me Peter Jackson's estimated 10 minutes or so to get used to the effect, and from there it was just spectacular. I don't even like 3D as a whole, I think it is typically a really gimmicky thing, but this was just gorgeous.

48fps was very different, it really did feel soap opera-esque for the first little bit, but once I got into the movie and stopped focusing and thinking about the frame rate, it made for a very visually appealing enjoyable experience. During the riddles in the dark scene, I felt like I could imagine myself being in the scene with the characters, which is remarkable considering one of the character is a computer drawn animation. In the Two Towers and The Return of the King, Gollum never really looked that real. I mean, he looked great, I felt they did a good job on him, but he still felt like a CG character. During that scene in The Hobbit, it was almost kind of freaky how organic he looked, I know the original Gollum was a product of decade old technology, so of course he would look better now, but I really think the more fluid motion of 48fps contributed to this.

I agree with all of this.

I also agree with Sean. After The Hobbit, for the first few days, all movies looked blurry to me. I thought, "have they always looked like this?" You never know what you are missing until you, well, know. It's like how we all thought VHS was fine until we saw DVD. And then with HD it was "bah, I can hardly tell the difference." Say that now!

Personally, I truely believe that 3D and high frame rate are going to be the future of movies, but it won't be overnight adoption like sound was. It will be more like colour. We experimented with colour at the turn of the 20th century, with things like hand-tinting, but it never took off beyond a gimmick. But then in the 1930s we invented Technicolor, but it was confined to only certain, blockbuster productions. Avatar is kind of like Wizard of Oz in terms of being the technical, mainstream breakthrough. You don't hear people bitching about how Dorothy transitioning from Black and White to Colour is an annoying gimmick to show us new technology and takes away from the immersion. It did for some back then--just like sound ruined the artistry of "motion pictures" for some in1929. But even in 1939 colour still languished in second place for a decade. The 1950s made colour more affordable through Eastman, but the quality wasn't there so it was a slow start that took a decade and a half co-existing with black and white. Once high-ISO film with richer colour began taking off in the 1970s no one looked back. They still make black and white films, but it's a novelty. I think the same will be with "flat" films or "blurry" films. Because if you could make a 3D film and have someone view without any additional effort--which will happen in the future--why would you want to shoot flat? 3D "stands out" for us, but only in the same way that colour "stood out" in 1939 and talkies stood out in 1929. They were new and therefore by definition novel.

SilverWook said:

I am wondering how 48fps will look with a 2D film now.

That would be an interesting test. I'm not sure I would accept it. It's hard to picture one without the other.

People will get used to it. I belong to the people who didn't like it, but even I admit the CGI creatures looked more real

Maybe a few people hit theaters with poor presentation that ruined it for them. But I imagine most of the theaters with 48fps abilities would be newer high end theaters that are in the habit of keeping things up to standards.

I honestly think all the hostility toward 48fps has everything to do with fear of change. It is a normal human response to the situation, and we've seen it countless times throughout our lives, with every little change science, discovery, and technology brings us, there are always a segment of people who oppose it vehemently. From going to the moon, to manual transmissions, color TV, and cellphones. 

Going to see it in good old 24 fps tomorrow because the wife will be in tow and she's (rightfully) nervous about 48 fps.

what is the deal with 48fps?   Hasn't video always had a faster frame rate than 48fps? 

could have sworn it was 60fps, but  I am of course no expert. 

SilverWook said:

I don't see what there is to be nervous about?

I thought some people really disliked the effect and/or never got used to it.  We go to just a couple of movies a year so we try to make sure it's something we will enjoy.

Warbler said:

could have sworn it was 60fps, but  I am of course no expert.

Warbler said:

could have sworn it was 60fps, but  I am of course no expert. 

Pretty sure video tape has been 60fps for some time now, though nowadays that's mostly reserved for soaps and such. Video is usually shot with 30fps these days.

SilverWook said:

I was editing video tape in college in the late 80's

It always freaks me out when someone here is older than me.  I went to college in the early 90's.

SilverWook said:

I was editing video tape in college in the late 80's, early 90's, and it was always 30 fps.

Not really what I meant. Broadcast video tapes. I'm not an expert so I don't know if I'm explaining it right.

Ever watch those Twilight Zone marathons and catch one of the few episodes that looks different, like a soap? Those were shot on tape instead of film to save money.

Edit: I hate to sound stupid, but I'm not even sure what I'm talking about anymore. I was sure I read somewhere that soap operas and othe broadcast stuff was shot at 60, but, honestly, I'm not sure. The Internet is not very informative in this area.

Were soap operas really shot at 30fps? They don't look like it. 

Maybe finally seeing the Hobbit at 48 would clear things up.