Comments on: The Hobbit 48fps might be axed

By: Jason Cruickshank

Jason Cruickshank — Tue, 26 Jun 2012 22:32:00 +0000

It will be up to individual movie theatres to decide if they want to show the movie at 48fps or at 24fps, the production will be mastered for both. Most digital cinemas will be able to display either by the time it’s released so it’ll just be a matter of perceived demand. Expect a lot of action films to start shooting in 48fps while most artful and dramatic films I expect will stay at 24fps.

By: Sephit

Sephit — Tue, 01 May 2012 22:35:00 +0000

Or should you say…Force of Hobbit is strong?

But seriously, I haven’t seen any of the footage but I have seen films in 120 Hz and it seriously takes all the magic out of the film, making it look like you are watching behind the scenes footage that hasn’t been finished in post.

By: Spatenheimer

Spatenheimer — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 13:04:00 +0000

It doesn’t matter where the additional frames come from. 48p will look like you are watching a Behind-the-Scenes documentation of the actual movie.

By: Sketch Da Shaman

Sketch Da Shaman — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 09:07:00 +0000

sounds a lot like 1/2in tape at 30IPS and 24words at 196khz: the Ears and Eyes don’t lie ;)

By: Sarah Sheppard

Sarah Sheppard — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 05:44:00 +0000

People complain when they don’t get 60FPS for games, the cinema world is catching up and the public needs to learn to accept change.

By: Wayne McKenzie

Wayne McKenzie — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 00:35:00 +0000

One thing is for sure; critics often are not good predictors of what will be popular. Movie technology has been a steady march toward realism. I (obviously) have not see the 42 fps clips, but if it makes the movie seem more real, I’m all for it.

By: digi_owl

digi_owl — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 22:42:00 +0000

hipsterism gone critical…

By: digi_owl

digi_owl — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 22:40:00 +0000

Note that Instagram applies various filters to perfectly fine digital images to make them seem like they were taken with a old Polaroid camera or similar. That is, they are trying to recreate a bygone era of semi-reliable analog film.

Hell, they add virtual film grain already to movies shot with digital equipment. And computer games apply things like lens flares and such to give the experience a more movie like feel. Basically we are recreating elements that no longer need to be there because people have come to expect them…

By: digi_owl

digi_owl — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 22:40:00 +0000

Force of habit is strong…

By: Tally Briggs

Tally Briggs — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 21:10:00 +0000

But you’re watching films shot in 24fps, with software creating missing frames where none exist.

Film shot in 48fps, and shown in 48fps is viewing actual images that exist, not ones that have to be created. That’s two different things.Sporting events shot in higher fps look awesome. Hobbit will as well, and it will have Middle Earth lighting, not stadium lighting. The best thing is, 3D won’t give you brain-throb.

Your brain views life faster than 48fps, and you have no problem with that, right?

By: Tally Briggs

Tally Briggs — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 21:10:00 +0000

But you’re watching films shot in 24fps, with software creating missing frames where none exist.

Your brain views life faster than 48fps, and you have no problem with that, right?

By: Paul L

Paul L — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 20:57:00 +0000

Your headline states that the 48fps may be axed, but that is just made up! No one has said it will be axed, anywhere. They stated that for cinemas not converted there would be a 24fps version as well, but thats it. You cant just make up headlines and then not back them up – did they not teach you anything at journalist college?

By: Paul L

Paul L — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 20:57:00 +0000

By: Bungles411

Bungles411 — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 20:51:00 +0000

I agree with the critics. When I watch movies at 120hz it degrades the quality of the movie in my opinion. Making a movie appear like a movie made for tv makes it less interesting to watch. Yes part of it is we are trained that 24fps is what movies are suppose to look like but IMHO it really does make them look worse to speed them up.

By: Bungles411

Bungles411 — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 20:51:00 +0000

By: Guest

Guest — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 19:26:00 +0000

Where does the article support the headline?

By: Tally Briggs

Tally Briggs — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 19:18:00 +0000

This is crazy. Because a few nerd boys at CinemaCon whined yesterday about mostly unfinished footage (while they simultaneously said the more complete/near finished scenes and sweeping location panoramas were AMAZING), they might scrap the technology???

LIFE is faster than 48FPS, (video games have been at 120fps for awhile), and no one cries about that looking like 70′s BBC video.

I’m even reading a ton of people today crying that they don’t like HD. WHAAAAAT? I can’t watch Standard def now because it hurts my eyes trying to focus the un-focasable.

Is there something in the water turning everyone into unthinking sheep????

By: Nate

Nate — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 18:46:00 +0000

Sooo, we’re trying to make movies more realistic for everyone, yet most everyone doesn’t want it that way?

By: Neroangelo

Neroangelo — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:47:00 +0000

Eh? 24fps has been a standard for decades…

By: Winston

Winston — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:26:00 +0000

24FPS video = The New Instagram for Cinema.