What's your take on The Hobbit being shown at 48FPS?

Euphoric · Nov 27, 2012

Normal movies are shot in 24 FPS, The Hobbit is being shot at 48. I'm not sure if they're still premiering at 48 FPS because I read that they showcased some scenes at 48 FPS during CinemaCon, and people didn't like it, said it looked awkward.

But, I believe this is a 48FPS trailer. What do you think?

http://www.48fpsmovies.com/The_Hobbit_An_Unexpected_Journey_Trailer.mp4

Cossner · Nov 27, 2012

I thought they backed out because of the poor reception in early showings...

Euphoric · Nov 27, 2012

Cossner said:
I thought they backed out because of the poor reception in early showings...

I'm not too sure, I just watched all of their Video Dairies (9 so far) and I've looked more into it, I am not sure if they are still premiering it at 48 FPS, but I found the trailer I linked above, just to see how it would look like in 48 FPS, and it does look different. Not sure if it's really 48 FPS trailer but it does look like it tho.

Cossner · Nov 27, 2012

I have no idea, I read something that it was going to be shown in 48fps in selected cinemas in 3D, but I don't know lol

And it looks like one of those awkward tvs that add frames to make it look smooth. Like a direct to tv film.

MKF30 · Dec 17, 2012

This means nothing to me, and shouldn't to anyone else if they saw the movie. I read there were some changes and that the 3D version was different then the normal version(outside of the 3D element) but honestly, normally the movie was epic. I enjoyed it! The movie was EXCELLENT!! I just hate that I have to wait a year and half to see the entire thing!

But great movie! I'd watch Hobbit and LOTR anyday over SW movies...

Rokinlobster · Dec 17, 2012

I think people.complaining about 48 fps were just looking for something to complain about.

Jim · Dec 17, 2012

MKF30 said:
This means nothing to me, and shouldn't to anyone else if they saw the movie. I read there were some changes and that the 3D version was different then the normal version(outside of the 3D element) but honestly, normally the movie was epic. I enjoyed it! The movie was EXCELLENT!! I just hate that I have to wait a year and half to see the entire thing!

But great movie! I'd watch Hobbit and LOTR anyday over SW movies...

So did you see it in 2D or 3D or 3D @ 48fps? I saw it in 2D and will later see it in 3D @ 48fps. The movie was awesome though.

Sage Leviathan · Dec 17, 2012

Doesnt matter, the movie is gdlk. An insta-DVD if you will.

Cossner · Dec 17, 2012

Sage Leviathan said:
Doesnt matter, the movie is gdlk. An insta-DVD if you will.

Insta-Bluray. What is this 2004?

And yes, the movie was fantastic. I saw the 48fps and it looked awkward at times, I'm gonna watch the 24fps version and I'll give my judgement e_e

EdFig81 · Dec 17, 2012

Soooooo everyone gets a n00b question. I am thinking about watching this when it comes out in bluray. If I do can I still see and notice the fps on a 60hz lcd? Or do I need to catch it in theaters?

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

Johnny2d · Dec 18, 2012

24fps is standard film rate. It is doubled in the case of 3d to hope for 'less headaches'.

Sent from M-Class Star Freighter USCSS Nostromo

Konqrr · Dec 18, 2012

It was shot at both 24 and 48fps. Not everywhere that plays it is showing it at 48fps.

I heard in testing with this speed, it made people uneasy or even sick.

THTB · Dec 18, 2012

My god, 48fps looks extremely weird. Iunno...so used to seeing 24fps all my life I guess lol.

Johnny2d · Dec 18, 2012

With 3d the right eye and left eye alternate every other frame. At 24 frames per second the effect works, at 48 frames a second it is supposed to be easier on the eyes.

Sent from M-Class Star Freighter USCSS Nostromo

BenGmanUk · Dec 18, 2012

Watched in 2D and didn't notice. Either way I thought it was a pretty average film and not a patch on LOTR. Left feeling meh.

SNiPeR_MiKe · Dec 18, 2012

48fps makes the movie look like a soap opera or some kind of BBC show.

It's like when you go to Best Buy and you go look at the TV's and they have that stupid fucking Motion Flow turned on making the TV's look like complete shit. Also 3d is completely retarded. Hollywood has been trying to shovel 3d down audiences throats for about 50 years. It would come in test the waters, and fail, and keep coming back every 10 years. But now it's popular on this new (stupid) generation of movie goers. 3d hasn't really changed that much. It's still that weird layered diorama viewing box that makes things feel smaller.

I know I sound like a harsh cynic, and I guess I am when it comes to stuff like this. Growing up in the 80's and early 90's there were too many amazing classic movies, compared to today's garbage (Twilight anyone? Transformers as well). Sure, there were bad movies back then, but I honestly can't recall any bad movies on the scale of Twilight back in the 80's or early 90's that were smash hits financially.

Ok, back on topic. Hobbit in 2d is just fine, no need for gimmicks.

The Green Machine · Dec 18, 2012

SNiPeR_MiKe said:
48fps makes the movie look like a soap opera or some kind of BBC show.

It's like when you go to Best Buy and you go look at the TV's and they have that stupid fucking Motion Flow turned on making the TV's look like complete shit. Also 3d is completely retarded. Hollywood has been trying to shovel 3d down audiences throats for about 50 years. It would come in test the waters, and fail, and keep coming back every 10 years. But now it's popular on this new (stupid) generation of movie goers. 3d hasn't really changed that much. It's still that weird layered diorama viewing box that makes things feel smaller.

I know I sound like a harsh cynic, and I guess I am when it comes to stuff like this. Growing up in the 80's and early 90's there were too many amazing classic movies, compared to today's garbage (Twilight anyone? Transformers as well). Sure, there were bad movies back then, but I honestly can't recall any bad movies on the scale of Twilight back in the 80's or early 90's that were smash hits financially.

Ok, back on topic. Hobbit in 2d is just fine, no need for gimmicks.

lol, what are you talking about, there are lots of classics that have came out recently, and there were a lot of terrible movies back in the day too.. A lot.

smokey · Dec 18, 2012

Saw this the other day in 2d and didnt notice any thing wrong with it.

Rokinlobster · Dec 18, 2012

So if 48 FPS film weirds people out, how do we play 60 fps mortal kombat with out feeling the same, or even worse effects?

THTB · Dec 18, 2012

Most movies being 24fps means something that's double the speed ends up weird to look at. It's common enough to get video games that are both 30fps and 60fps that it doesn't really bother you.

Under_The_Mayo · Dec 18, 2012

I wish directors would realize that video quality doesn't necessarily help their movie. It can take you out of the experience. Just like music that is too clean and digital. You lose the soul.

Euphoric · Dec 18, 2012

I haven't seen it yet, but, it was originally supposed to be 48 FPS release at every cinema, but due to the negative response from a clip Jackson showed during a convention, WB decide to show The Hobbit at 48 FPS at select cinemas.

Also, it looks weird, if anyone see how 48 FPS looks like, and you own a modern day LED/LCD TV go to your settings and turn on those after effects for your TV, should be something along the lines of Anti-Blur/ClearStream etc, that's how it looks.

48 FPS looks awkward, it looks like some British PBS show, and even looks more smoother than a Soap Opera, you kind of lose the feeling that you're watching a movie when you watch it at 48 IMO, it feels like the world is unnatural and it feels like it's being "acted".

I'll have a more solid opinion on it, when I watch more of em.

THTB · Dec 18, 2012

Under_The_Mayo said:
I wish directors would realize that video quality doesn't necessarily help their movie. It can take you out of the experience. Just like music that is too clean and digital. You lose the soul.

Tell that to the mass that loves everything looking high definition lol.

SCK ERR0R MACR0 · Dec 18, 2012

Edfig81 said:
Soooooo everyone gets a n00b question. I am thinking about watching this when it comes out in bluray. If I do can I still see and notice the fps on a 60hz lcd? Or do I need to catch it in theaters?

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

Yes. Your tv is refreshing 60 times a second, so a film shot in 48fps will be refreshed as such.

Johnny2d said:
24fps is standard film rate. It is doubled in the case of 3d to hope for 'less headaches'.

Sent from M-Class Star Freighter USCSS Nostromo

I imagine that if this is 3D in theatres that they are using passive technology, which means that the frames are not alternating between eyes to create the 3D effect. Instead, passive technology uses polorized lenses (each eye gets a different polorization that receives the light intended for that eye, but blocks the light intended for the opposite eye) to achieve the effect. In the case of passive, screen resolution is the compromise, not fps. Because of this, increasing fps will not alter the 3D effect in any way.

totheark · Dec 18, 2012

The Green Machine said:
lol, what are you talking about, there are lots of classics

Which ones?
In my opinion, only Nolan's and Tarantino's work have come even close to becoming classics.
Everything else from the mid-2000's onwards has been shovel ware.[/quote]

What's your take on The Hobbit being shown at 48FPS?

MKX

King of the Jobbers 2015

MKX

King of the Jobbers 2015

Fujin and Ermac for MK 11

Nightwolf of the galaxy

Emperor of the Moon

I'm platinum mad!

King of the Jobbers 2015

Original OBS mbr/VSM/G4S

Xbl: Johnny2Die

MK11 Kabal = MK9 Kitana

Arez | Booya | Riu48 - Rest Easy, Friends

Xbl: Johnny2Die

Get staffed bro

Noob

Noob

EX Ovi should launch

Nightwolf of the galaxy

Arez | Booya | Riu48 - Rest Easy, Friends

Master of Quanculations

MKX

Arez | Booya | Riu48 - Rest Easy, Friends

Noob

Shazzy's Senpai