what do you guys think about the the hobbit and 48fps

[monstercameron]

I was a trailer and it is night and day, the difference between 24p and 48p. 48p is so much smoother and cleaner, I don't get why the industry has stayed at 24p for so long.

 

[TrashyMG]

I'll let you know on Saturday when I see the movie.


Some critics say it makes some of the CGI scenes look a little more fake.. but we'll see.

 

[ekianjo]

Some critics say it makes some of the CGI scenes look a little more fake.. but we'll see.

I do not know about the Hobbit itself, but I clearly remember that when I saw "the phantom menace" on a big plasma screen about 10 years ago, all the CGI looked extremely fake because the picture was so "perfect" so this may very well provide a similar effect.


About the Hobbit, seems like they added a lot of non-book stuff, and treated the dwarves as C6POs . I'll probably be watching the movie rolling my eyes, knowing how distasteful the additions in LOTR already were .

 

[Asmo]

Decades ago there were trials of 60fps film, and the added expense aside (all the extra film) the verdict was that it looked too much like video - people were used to the look of film, and subconsciously associated it with a more expensive production.


I suspect that in time people will get used to 48fps - some will never have seen an old celluloid 24fps one, and as most cinemas become 'digital' (euphemism for video projection) there will be no added cost in distributing the 48fps editions. Effects and cinematography will adapt to take advantage of it properly.


But yes, right here and now it does give the film the look of a Christmas TV special.

 

[elwing]

dunno about 48fps, but am I the only one who remember The hobbit is a meant to be a child book?

 

[Linux-SWAT]

The problem is not the framerate.


The problem is that the hobbits are small (not to mention the dwarves). A bigger screen would have been better than a higher framerate.