48fps for movies...yay or nay?

[solomongrundy]

eshbop, I feel the same way.   The large panning shots were nice,...the rest was just sickening to me.  

Maybe if they can switch between 48 and 24 depending on the shot, I think I would enjoy it more...but as it is, especially with 2d, I'm not a 48p fan when it comes to movies.

 

Yeah it's definitely different. The large panning shots look a better but the mid-close up fast paced shots make the actors and sets (maybe because a lot of the set is green-screened rather than real) look disjunct and movement has the illusion of being sped up.

 

[beebskadoo]

Damn that looked stuttery......

 

not even 24 fps movie stutters this badly for me.

Which one the youtube vid or the Video game highschool one?

[beebskadoo]

How about the one OP linked.

oh right...i actually didn't see a link there

[beebskadoo]

Looks good, much smoother and gets rid of any motion blur. I like it 

 

 

 

How can you play games if your computer can't even play 48fps HD video?  :P

 

 

 

We'll probably never see 60fps as theatre projectors run and 24hz, meaning they'll only shoot movies in multiples of 24, 48, etc. 

I was more or less talking about disc and downloadable media. I rarely go to the theater unless it's a movie I really want to see, like the hobbit movies.

[beebskadoo]

Right.............

 

 

 

Read thru whole topic maybe before responding.

Chill bro...

[ionbasa]

Interesting, I cant play the HFR version video in either Chrome nor Firefox.

[Lyons]

Right.............

 

 

 

Read thru whole topic maybe before responding.

 

Seriously, it shouldn't be stuttery.

 

I was more or less talking about disc and downloadable media. I rarely go to the theater unless it's a movie I really want to see, like the hobbit movies.

I know, but the downloadable and hard copy stuff is derived from the cinema version, so...  <_<

[wpirobotbuilder]

Absolutely. Motion blur in big action movies can kill the scene sometimes.

 

It does take a little getting used to 48fps, but that's because you're seeing something better than what you saw before.

[ionbasa]

After watching the 48 fps version I can personally say it looks way better than the 24 fps version.

 

I asked a family member if they could tell the difference, when comparing the 48 fps to the 24 fps. They described the 48 fps version as "looking more 3d-ish."

[beebskadoo]

Absolutely. Motion blur in big action movies can kill the scene sometimes.

 

It does take a little getting used to 48fps, but that's because you're seeing something better than what you saw before.

 

 

Seriously, it shouldn't be stuttery.

 

I know, but the downloadable and hard copy stuff is derived from the cinema version, so...  <_<

well at any rate, 48 IMHO is a definite plus for me. I hope it gets more common.

[7850OC]

nay  ^_^

[tacticious]

I liked watching Hobbit on 48FPS. 
It was weird though because it seems way too close to reality, it bugged me.
Nevertheless it was a fun experience

[RuecanOnRails]

The problem with the Hobbit and it's 48FPS is that they didn't jump all in. The entire thing was not filmed/presented in constant 48fps. A lot of it was done in post which made it into an almost fake 48fps marketing gimmick.

When something is flmed, and shown in a higher FPS, it's not noticeable other then a more natural feel.

 

They way the Hobbit was done, is similar to the way LCD tv's try to compensate for image lag and create a really fake looking picture.

[mgsstar]

Freddiew's VGHS trailer is 48FPS and its alot smoother imo.

[TopWargamer]

Nay

 

Looks like everything is going a bit too fast. 

[ejm_110]

Yay but... 24fps is fine for me though

 

I like the HFR version of The Hobbit. I like the HFR videos shoot natively, not the post processing of TVs today. Anyway, I can live with 24fps, I saw something on the internet that movies are meant to suck you in with their story, scripts, acting, music and many more. I agree with it. It's like playing game not because of graphics but because of the story and fun it brings to you. What I would like is to shoot sports on HFR natively, seeing the crossover clearly, the kick, the punches... everything. HFR is needed on Bruce Lee.

[ixi_your_face]

48FPS is beautiful. Don't dis our smooth FPS

[Xorbot]

not really, I play PC games, the reason more frames is better in that scenario is because of the fact that you have an active input, and you are controlling it, you will feel a more tangible difference with games, but when it comes to movies, 24fps just plain looks better.

Why? because when you look at anything that happens fast, you never see all of it right? so that's why I feel 24 frames is better, in that case, it just feels more natural,  48 frames feels weird because in real life, you don' t have this buttery smooth feeling, dunno.

and no, don't say I was brought up with crap, I take that to offense as my parents are great

 

The worse parts of 24 fps, however, is when there is a camera pan of a scene, and objects move into the foreground.  Those objects move faster in the foreground from the perspective of the camera (parallaxing).  It is most unsettling when those foreground rocks and trees jump 3-feet per frame.  I also notice an incredible jarring choppiness during the Assassin's Creed-style camera rotation atop of a structure in the Prince of Persia movie.  I think Linus also mentioned this issue in the Star Trek movie when there was panning in the Jupiter scene.

 

For 2 people speaking with each other, or courtroom drama scenes, 24 fps appears to be good enough.  I just don't feel like 24 fps is enough for fast moving scenes and fast camera pans, however. :(

[nicholaswillems]

My current computer can't really handle that trailer so it stutters a lot, but from the parts that do play well, I like the 48 fps. It's quite different from what we're all used to, 'feels' kinda strange but eventually way better :D

[1funnygame]

There should be a poll and also yay

I didn't notice anything wrong.....which is great as i usually go crazy at landscape panning or any type of large movement as i feel like I'm watching a slideshow and can easily distinguish each frame

[Godlygamer23]

It is probably meant for 3D as 3D splits up the frames so 24FPS per eye I believe is how it works, don't quote me on it though.

Yes. That is how current 3D techs work - well the active methods anyways.

[Deleon.David]

nothing less than 30

[Godlygamer23]

It's also based around what we've been experiencing for many years. Yes, we're used to it on gaming(for many PCs at least), but because we're used to movies being rendered at 24FPS, this is a big change to what the standard is. We can rightfully expect movies to be rendered at 24FPS, so when the FPS is changed, it may look weird to some.

[Pingypoker]

More FPS is more better.

 

Why aren't we at 60fps yet?

[_wky]

I prefer 60 FPS as that seems fluid for me. I've tried to watch 24 FPS and found it unbearable.