The Hobbit will be shown in 2D, 3D and high-rate-frame 3D

My parents bought a 62 inch LED HD tv recently and I was watching it one day and I kept noticing no matter what I put on, I could see the lighting and the set in every movie/tv show. I thought i was just really high, but this explains it.

The 40fps kinda makes it look like I'm watching a video game and damn that movie looks good

[QUOTE=kentatm]i personally hate 48 FPS

the claims that it makes shit look fake are true.

you can blatantly tell its a movie set.

you can friggin see the damn make up caked on actors faces its so bad.

its basically the same as how some of the newer TVs are so good you have to go into their settings and downgrade the ****ers b/c they make it easy to see how the lighting and sets are obviously fake.

48 FPS essentially makes a movie look like an expensive stage play.


i get that it will eventually be the standard but until people relearn how to do lighting, sets, makeup, etc, its going to look like ass.[/QUOTE]

This movie is perfect for 48 fps, and don't get me wrong most movies would be shit like this. But we're talking about a slow paced fantasy movie with alot of scenery and cgi.

[QUOTE=macmac]I'm glad you made it clear you're an imbecile so I can dismiss any other drivel you will undoubtedly conjure in the near future[/QUOTE]
:oldlol:

[QUOTE]Q: Why would a clearer image be a problem?

A: Because, as it turns out, it's possible for an image to look so clear that it no longer looks real. Or so real that it takes you out of the film. As in: that film set looks like ... a film set. Put it this way: the picture is so clear that in one scene I could see Ian McKellen's contact lenses. I won't claim to be a Tolkien expert, but I am pretty sure Acuvue does not exist in Middle Earth.[/QUOTE]

That's a good point, imo.

[QUOTE]but I am pretty sure Acuvue does not exist in Middle Earth.[/QUOTE]

In the blu-ray of the Godfather, in the wedding scene you can see the old singer's dentures slip. You can't see that on the DVD.

[QUOTE=shlver]Being projected at 48 fps and being shot at 48 fps are two different things. I think films are shot at 24 fps, and each frame repeated twice, projecting it at 48 fps. The difference is we have each slide capturing a different image at 48 fps. Less motion blur means less imperfections making people see it as "too real that it's fake."[/QUOTE]

Yes, that's why I asked the question as this is be projected at 48 FPS and its indeed a first.

When they shoot films at 24 frames per second as they currently do, they still project at 24 frames per second, but they there is a shutter in the project that spins in front of the Projector light blocking the light for a portion of each frame's duration on screen. (It also blocks the light when each film frame is moved, otherwise, we would just see blurry images.) So for each frame of the film, there is a time when the frame is not being projected. Literally the screen is dark for tiny bit of time, but our eyes don't see it due do a optical phenomenon known as persistence of vision. [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movie_projector#Shutter"]The shutter reduces preceived screen "flicker"[/URL]

However, this is never referred to projecting at 48 frames per second.

The Red camera website that you quote is a video camera and that page is not written well, refresh rate is is a video term referring to a video or TV monitor literally redrawing the image, for traditional movie projectors they would call this a flicker rate.
[QUOTE]Yes it does. Couldn't find a reliable source but this an excerpt from a professional cinema equipment seller
[QUOTE]With 24 fps, movie projectors typically show each frame 2-3 times for an overall refresh rate of 48-72 Hz.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Here's a good source for how film projectors work
[url]http://www.movingimage.us/sprockets/filmproj.swf[/url]

Saw The Hobbit in 48fps 3D tonight.

Parts of it look amazing and parts look cheap. I was with a friend who already saw it in 2D and 24 fps and even geekier than I am. (He was upset we weren't watching it in 48 fps 3D IMAX.) He said the difference in look of the movie jumped out at him and it felt more video-like.

As it was I think it was the most I ever paid for a movie ticket.

The vistas and landscape shots look great, however, some close up and interiors including a lot scenes shot in caves look a little fake. However other close up shots looked fine. I couldn't put my finger on exactly what was causing it. I wonder if 48 fps is something that cinematographers are going to have learn what works best. I wouldn't go so far as saying it ruined the experience for me, and I liked the movie just fine, but it's a fantasy movie, so you know the whole thing is fake anyway. For a serious drama it probably wouldn't be the right choice.

I think I got used it pretty quick. I think I liked the Gollum scene best.

[QUOTE=OhNoTimNoSho]My parents bought a 62 inch LED HD tv recently and I was watching it one day and I kept noticing no matter what I put on, I could see the lighting and the set in every movie/tv show. I thought i was just really high, but this explains it.[/QUOTE]


They probably have the sharpness turned up too high.

Here's a quick guide to calibrate a TV
[url]http://www.avforums.com/home/pictureperfect.html[/url]

Just saw it and enjoyed it, and did notice some parts where you can tell they're on a movie set. No complaints though.

I watched Casino Royale on a high rate frame and I felt nauseas

[QUOTE=Patrick Chewing]Just saw it and enjoyed it, and did notice some parts where you can tell they're on a movie set. No complaints though.[/QUOTE]
Did you see the high frame rate version?

I'm not an expert in cinematography but our eyes can't see past 20fps, so how exactly does this 48fps enhance my experience? Seems like lots of more frames I'm gonna miss.

Seen it in 3D HFR today. I thought it looked abit cartoon-ish and felt fast forwarded on some scenes. Overall not bad, would watch again but it's nothing groundbreaking in terms of movie going experience.