Here's some more peoples thoughts on it:
http://www.eoshd.com/content/9357/48p-the-hobbit-british-and-american-critics-verdict
So many idiots.
Calling a higher frame rate "fake" makes you a flat out retard.
It is like calling normal vision "fake"!
Here's some more peoples thoughts on it:
http://www.eoshd.com/content/9357/48p-the-hobbit-british-and-american-critics-verdict
A problem with higher fidelity is that it can reveal flaws in props/actors makeup etc. A revealed flaw in a scene takes away from the immersion and can give the viewer the impression that it's fake. So yes wizards and Hobbits aren't real.
So many idiots.
Calling a higher frame rate "fake" makes you a flat out retard.
It is like calling normal vision "fake"!
A problem with higher fidelity is that it can reveal flaws in props/actors makeup etc. A revealed flaw in a scene takes away from the immersion and can give the viewer the impression that it's fake. So yes wizards and Hobbits aren't real.
Hobbit was shot with 48fps and 270° shutter, meaning 0.75 length of motion blur when compared to standard 24fps 180° shutter.So people found The Hobbit's 24FPS content with ZERO motion blur visually pleasing? lol
If you want identical image to normal 24fps 180°, you shoot 48fps with 360° shutter and drop half of the frames.You can't manufacture a camera with zero motion blur. 48 fps footage should have plenty of motion blur in it. And you can of course add two 48 fps frames together to form a 24 fps frame (that should look identical to having a twice as long shutter time). I don't think they purposefully crippled the 24 fps version.
Or digitally composite frames to make a 48 fps scene into a 24fps one. Better yet, keep 48 fps but add motion blur equivalent to 24 fps.If you want identical image to normal 24fps 180°, you shoot 48fps with 360° shutter and drop half of the frames.
Unless you want image with 24fps and 360° shutter..
And none of that has anything to do with frame rate!
If the actor had bad makeup or the set had a hole in it you would still see that in 24FPS.
You guys debating the 48fps issues, have you actually seen the Hobbit in HFR yet or is it just a theoretical debate at this point? I'm going to see it tonight and decided not to have any preconceptions before that...
A problem with higher fidelity is that it can reveal flaws in props/actors makeup etc. A revealed flaw in a scene takes away from the immersion and can give the viewer the impression that it's fake. So yes wizards and Hobbits aren't real.
And the proper way to fix that is not to go back down to 24 fps, it is to get better makeup and prop artists!
If they upgrade to 16k@1200hz 3D I'm willing to pay even 30€ to see movies. It would be like really being THERE, instead of just watching a screen.You're escalating costs dramatically. I expect for the most part these people are already very good at what they do so you're looking at increasing time and cost of production. I don't want to pay $25 to see a movie before the popcorn. Diminishing returns will certainly play a role in where they draw the line.
If they upgrade to 16k@1200hz 3D I'm willing to pay even 30€ to see movies. It would be like really being THERE, instead of just watching a screen.
Then it wasn't 48fps.No it wouldn't, you're still only getting 2 senses and a 90 degree (or thereabouts) FOV.
I haven't seen the hobbit yet, but my friends comment was, "if they hadn't said it was 48fps I wouldn't have known."
Er... You're suggesting that Peter Jackson is lying about it?Then it wasn't 48fps.
Er... You're suggesting that Peter Jackson is lying about it?
The theater is definitely showing it in 48fps, they've advertised it as such.
Usually I can understand when something is running above 30fps. Saw the movie yesterday and it didnt look like it was 48fps.
Perhaps its not running 48fps in all theaters.