Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

The Hobbit at 48fps...

Interesting, so he basically likes 24fps with 135 degree shutter? I would agree. when I shoot digital in standard 180, sometimes it just gets that "video" looking effect in the blur for no reason I can think of and when that happens I lower the shutter angle until it stops looking so much like video.
 
I was referring to his preferences concerning 24 fps.
 
Looks like his preference concerns 48fps from now on, assuming we get used to the idea/experience and quit romanticizing the 'magical veil' of film grain, spinning shutters and an almost arbitrary flickering rate based on dollars, not direction.
 
No need to get antagonistic, I'm only curious about what the process is for their 24fps delivery when the content was shot in 48 originally, and neither attacking nor elevating the merits of either format. Is that okay with you?
 
haha, sorry... that wasn't directed towards you personally.

it is very interesting how many different formats are being delivered...

2d 24, 3d 24, 3d 48, IMAX 3d 48, IMAX 3d 24, IMAX 2d 24... whew.

oh and then there's the 64-channel dolby atmos soundtrack that some theatres will play through.
 
Dimitri Boschma said:
Here is a list with theaters showing in 48 Fps http://www.48fpsmovies.com/48-fps-theater-list/
Click to expand...

Thanks man! Great help! I preorded my tickets at the Rockaway AMC Theater in NJ, a week ago. Knew that they had the Sony 4k projector...but wasn't sure if it was gonna be in 48fps. Now I know that it is!!! Awsome! Can't wait! This is a long shot for in my area...but any fellow RED users going to the midnight showing at that theater?
 
Jannard said:
Only 1 in 25 will have the opportunity to see The Hobbit at 48fps. Too bad. It is a new viewing experience.

24 of 25 of you will see it at 24fps. (yawn) Don't get me wrong... it looks incredible at 24fps. But you are missing the point.

Jim
Click to expand...

JIM: I sincerely want to watch this movie in 3d @ 48fps. I have hated 3d movies for so long, but trust you when you say this is a new ball game. BUT my problem is I wear glasses... I need them. I have a wicked stigmatism, so contacts are a no-go. And putting 3d glasses over them is just obnoxious, and very uncomfortable, let alone doesn't work since they aren't up against my eyes. What are you thoughts or fixes for this?

IS there a way of knowing what type of glasses i'll need for the show, and if i can buy them somewhere? I have googled.....
 
They should make clip on lenses (3D glasses without the stems that go around the ear) that clip on the inside of the persons glasses... I think that might work?
 
You should buy glasses and modify it yourself like that. Cut the lense so it fits on in the inside of your glasses. That's what I would do...
 
Jannard said:
Only 1 in 25 will have the opportunity to see The Hobbit at 48fps. Too bad. It is a new viewing experience.

24 of 25 of you will see it at 24fps. (yawn) Don't get me wrong... it looks incredible at 24fps. But you are missing the point.

Jim
Click to expand...


But as far as I know Hobbit is distributed (and maybe finished) only in 2K and not in 4K...

I just wonder if are any theaters, which are able to screen 3D movies in 4K 48fps?
 
I cannot comment on a film which I have not yet seen. So I won't. But...

Maik Müller Menendez said:
There was (and still is) a big missunderstanding about shooting 24p being the magic trick to make your stuff look like film. It's just on piece of the puzzle, lots of people learned that the hard way.
Click to expand...
I disagree profoundly. 24fps is the main ingredient in what makes movies look like 'movies'. Other ingredients, such as highlight roll-off etc. are important, yes. But frame rate is the major ingredient.

Blair S. Paulsen said:
I don't have the research grant to properly vet my thesis but I contend that if viewers were to watch nothing but 48/50/60 fps material for a couple of months and then were offered a 24fps presentation they would find it choppy and blurry.
Click to expand...
Maybe. But most of us have grown up with both 50/60i and 24p. We know what looks like TV and what looks like film. I don't mind the TV look but it's flatter - and more immediate - than the film look. I'm happy to change my mind in the face of The Hobbit. But that film will possibly introduce a third visual quality and won't change the perception of the two existing ones.

We'll see.
 
Unlike tons of moaning others I will tell my opinion about 3D 48fps experience just AFTER I will see the movie.

The bad thing is that some people are mixing their 2D 48fps experience with their 3D 48fps non-experience.
 
Petr Dvorak said:
Unlike tons of moaning others I will tell my opinion about 3D 48fps experience just AFTER I will see the movie.

The bad thing is that some people are mixing their 2D 48fps experience with their 3D 48fps non-experience.
Click to expand...

Thank you for that Peter!!

I hope you enjoy it, as I love the 48fps look, but it also takes some getting used to it, just as we had to adjust, going form SD to HD, big viewing difference were all looked like Soap Opera, but now we got so used to it and we love it, and never we would go back to SD TV viewing, and to me 48fps look is in the similar way comparable to it.

But I must also point out that in 3D, 48fps sharper look with less blurred trailings aside, the Visual Cortex Mussel, needs training, so, if one sees for the first time a 3D film, will not be the same experience as one the same person has seen a variety of 3D material for a while, same concept as when some one goes to the Gym, they can't expect to lift heavy weights, but with training their mussels become stronger and fit, and then can lift heavier weights, same thing in 3D with our Visual Cortex Mussels, once they are trained, we will experience 3D in a much better way, also descriptively and actively depicting more details within the scene with much less effort, and with this also greatly reduce any chance of Fatigue which could lead to minor headaches.
 
KETCH ROSSi said:
I hope you enjoy it, as I love the 48fps look, but it also takes some getting used to it, just as we had to adjust, going form SD to HD, big viewing difference were all looked like Soap Opera, but now we got so used to it and we love it, and never we would go back to SD TV viewing, and to me 48fps look is in the similar way comparable to it.
Click to expand...

Now that I don't think is true. I remember going to trade shows when HD came in and loving the quality they produced immediately. But because they were filmed on small chip camera's and at 50i I remember thinking how realistic it looked (nothing wrong with that) when looking at HD screens nearby that were showing 35mm filmed content that was also beautifully lit but they gave a wholly different emotional response. We seem to have two things in mind that are learnt, one is TV reality and the other filmic reality (or poetic unreality if you like). From reports those boundaries are being crossed and people are having trouble with it. Do we have to re-educate our audiences perceptions? Is it worth it? Undoubtedly there will be pay offs but as a new palette I would be careful with it as I wouldn't want my audience to feel distant from it's content.
 
Karim D. Ghantous said:
I cannot comment on a film which I have not yet seen. So I won't. But...


I disagree profoundly. 24fps is the main ingredient in what makes movies look like 'movies'. Other ingredients, such as highlight roll-off etc. are important, yes. But frame rate is the major ingredient.


Maybe. But most of us have grown up with both 50/60i and 24p. We know what looks like TV and what looks like film. I don't mind the TV look but it's flatter - and more immediate - than the film look. I'm happy to change my mind in the face of The Hobbit. But that film will possibly introduce a third visual quality and won't change the perception of the two existing ones.

We'll see.
Click to expand...

There is research (sorry no link that I can find) that says it takes only 21 days to break a habit or instill a new one. ITBT, then I think what Blair proposes could both break the old habit and replace it with the new one easily in that time frame. Even that seems like too long a time frame to me... but that's just me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top