48fps The Hobbit - First Review

[Felix K.]

Interesting.

http://movies.ign.com/articles/122/1223523p1.html

[Marc Wielage]

Lot of mixed press:

TheWrap.com

Deadline Hollywood

Hollywood Reporter

I'm very surprised to hear some showgoers say it looked like a soap opera! Obviously, people are going to have to get used to the frame rate so they can judge the film for what it is -- dramatically and technically.

[Gabriele Turchi]

ouch ...

[Demetri Zuev]

Well, they can always fix it in post if they decide so (or the studio makes them to).

Honestly, I'm not surprised to see this kind of reaction, even watching something in 30p makes me fell that it looks like video, not to mention 48fps.

It'll take time for people to adjust to this new format and ultimately the audience will decide if it's good enough or not, in other words if they want to see it on screen.

[Domenic Barbero]

If anyone owns a samsung HD tv with Auto motion plus, im sure this is what its like. I HATE when auto motion plus is on. makes it have that soap opera feel to it. great for sports when you wanna see the action, but for anything else its total crap. I like the motion blur from 24fps. it gives me that fantasy feeling. I dont want to feel like its real. i hope it doesnt end up looking like that samsung tv. keeping my fingers crossed.

[Lliam Worthington]

Brilliant marketing ploy. I will have to see it at least twice now - once at 48 and 24. :)

[Demetri Zuev]

If anyone owns a samsung HD tv with Auto motion plus, im sure this is what its like. I HATE when auto motion plus is on.

I know what you mean, Domenic. Every time I go into a TV section of a tech store there are tens of LCD TVs and for some reason this mode is enabled on all of them.

And they usually show big Hollywood blockbusters that look like they were shot on Sony DVCam. It just freaks me out.

[Sean McAllister]

At NAB Christie was showing a high fps test James Cameron shot. It showed 3D at 24, 48, and 60 side by side. It was awesome to see this in person. High fps is definitely the way to go on a 3D film. I don't care too much for 3D, but when presented like this you forget you are watching stereo and can watch the film. They also showed footage acquired at 48 and 60 projected at 24 and I couldn't see a difference with the footage shot at 24.

3D should be high fps. 2D should be 24

[Nick Morrison]

At NAB Christie was showing a high fps test James Cameron shot. It showed 3D at 24, 48, and 60 side by side. It was awesome to see this in person. High fps is definitely the way to go on a 3D film. I don't care too much for 3D, but when presented like this you forget you are watching stereo and can watch the film. They also showed footage acquired at 48 and 60 projected at 24 and I couldn't see a difference with the footage shot at 24.

3D should be high fps. 2D should be 24

I think this is one of the most interesting things I've read on REDUSER in a while. Didn't realize that the frame rate jump in 3D could make such a difference. Very, very interesting...

I wonder why? Is it because your eye splits it in two? So 48fps divided by 2 is essentially 24frames for each eye? Kind of like how interlacing is blending two fields at once, is 3D sterescopic the blending of two streams of data, and in this case you need to double the frame rate in order replicate the "feel" of 24?

Hmm..

Does that mean the shutter speed is going up to? To 96? That wouldn't give you the motion blur we're used to in 24. I wonder if they "add" motion blur when they down-convert the 3D back to 2D.

[Sergio Perez]

Haven't seen this so I won't judge it until then. Tried to shoot some footage on my Epic at 48fps and didn't really liked what I saw in 2D, however.