Does 30fps feel more "cinematic" than 60fps?

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.

 

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.

 

Hobbit was shot with 48fps and 270° shutter, meaning 0.75 length of motion blur when compared to standard 24fps 180° shutter.

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..

 

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.

 

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...

 

You can see more detail when you capture and play back in 48 fps.

On thing that looks weird in "The Hobbit" is that they have totally blurred out the features on the face of Galadriel and (to a lesser extent) Elrond. I guess that is because the actors have aged.

 

If its just about public opinion, cinemas should go towards mp3-compressed sound in the future:
http://www.macworld.co.uk/ipad-iphone/news/?newsid=25288.

Crazy how much people obsess over destroying quality on purpose, you can always cut down frames, you can always watch movies in black and white, you can always put vaseline over your screen if the image is too sharp. The other way is impossible to do (heck, movies upconverted to 100fps still lock better than the choppy 24fps source to me, with all its obvious faults)

 

So what'd you think of it?

 

I hope they don't fossilize on 48fps for too long. It's much better than 24, but it's still not enough.
Need a minimum of 120fps for things to be really fluid.

 

The perfection will be an IMAX screen 16k@1200fps 3D with 22.2 audio, but that's gonna take a long long while.

 

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!

 

I shot a little movie in 50fps on a Nex 5N. I added some swirly vortex as a special effect by displacing and resizing a masked clip over time. It looked less realistic at the higher framerate. However, people I asked preferred the smoother motion of the rest of the vid.

I expect 48+ fps footage of people in costumes will smack a bit of video footage of sci-fi conventions. Should get to see the Hobbit at 48fps this week - thankfully the nearby cinema is one of a few showing the HFR version that isn't in a major city.

 

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.

 

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."

 

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.

 

It's showing in a couple of theaters here, one lists high frame rate, the other does not.