48fps 3D preview of 'The Hobbit' gets mixed reaction at CinemaCon - Page 2

Personally, I think I'd prefer the 48fps. I like the smoother image the FI on my projector produces. When I see the choppy, jerking motion of a 24fps pan versus smoother FI enhanced, I usually always prefer smoother. So, put me down for now as a supporter for 48 fps.

more (negative) reaction to the footage:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1452391.html

What needs to be communicated to all the backwards looking "*purest" is you can still make a 24fps film using a 48fps standard. You could even take a 48fps film and drop every other frame to add the "wagon wheel" effect.

Seems the "holy grail" is 120Hz (still several years away mostly because of storage) which allows (almost) all legacy support from film and video and can also be touted as superior to video.

Also how well are the current digital cinema projection infrastructure setups at handling 48Hz and beyond?

*24fps was not chosen for any artistic reasons but because it was the least amount you could get way with without adding too many motion artifacts and to keep the amount of film needed to a minimum (costs & logistics).

I'm over 50, don't watch reality TV, and I like frame interpolation.

I like how it smooths out panning shots, etc. My PJ supports its use in 3D, and it really shines there. Jackson is correct about higher framerates and 3D. It's like being IN the film, and is much easier on the eyes.

I have no issues with film grain, etc. I just can't stand judder/studder. It takes me out of the moment.

For good or bad, the public perception (mostly unconscious, but nevertheless firm) about framerate is:
24 fps - Movie (fantasy world)
48, 60 fps > The making of the movie (documentary)
I would fully agree with your statement if you just replaced "IN the film" with "IN the making of the film".
Of course, it can be changed, and Jackson can be the pioneer. It won't be even 50 years and everybody will be as disgusted as you by the "offensive" wagon wheel effect. Good luck with that.


You seem overly fixated on a feature that is in your display for no other reason than the fact that the mass produced chipset in it has it. And that chipset has it for no other reason than the fact that some time 6-7 years ago it became one of the gimmicks that increased processing speeds of the silicone allowed. It makes me think that if you were as passionate about books as you are about video, you would be angry at everyone for still reading in the ancient way of static black letters on white paper, instead of moving to the latest technological "achievements" - interactive e-books with lots of sounds, animation, YouTube video, immediate google lookups and facebook integration.

Would love to see the Hobbit Bluray release have both 1080p24 and 720p60 versions...for comparison. Are there any film 720p60-authored blurays out there?

How do you suggest converting 1080x48P to 720x60P?

For sure there are 720p50 blu-rays in the former PAL world. That would be the closest format in which a 48fps movie can be put on blu-ray. The only downside would be the 4% video speedup of the video and higher pitched sound, which is no different that the way a 24fps movie is displayed in the 50Hz world now anyway.
In the 60Hz world tackling 48fps borders on impossible. 3:2 pulldown can't be used, the judder from 48 to 60 fps will be huge, so technically 48 fps can be watched with reasonable compromise only on a display that supports 50Hz. Which guarantees that the 48fps format will not see any official release on blu-ray or TV broadcast in North America, Korea and Japan. I think it's clear what that means for its future.

Excuse me, but my complaint has nothing to do with LCD technology, as should be clear. It is the 24fps artifact of stuttering panning shots. The exact same thing happens in the theatre. FI solves the problem for me.

We all have opinions, I just don't deal with condescending attitudes very well.

My point is that the frame interpolation technology did not come to solve a panning judder or any other pressing problem. It was just a gimmick that manufacturers added because:
1. They could.
2. It attracted more attention to their TV sets when they work in split screen demo mode on store shelves.
3. The competition in video displays in the last years shifted from quality to stuffing more gimmicks for less dollars.

Not trying to be condescending about anything, sorry if it came out like that.
Some people are more sensitive about certain artifacts more than others, no doubt about it. What I am saying is that way more people would feel uneasy about the documentary look of a movie, than those who actually notice, let alone are bothered by panning judder.

how does 48FPS work?...does everyone need to buy new hardware (televisions, receiver. blu-ray player etc) which support this feature in order to view it?

It doesn't in your home. You would need a new TV (none on the market as of now) and BD doesn't support it at all so it will take an all new BD standard or delivery method (like streaming).

In all likelihood 48Khz will not be available with the current 1080 standard and will be included when we trans. over to 4K.

This isn't a big problem, they just need to invent the 48fps version of what 3:2 pulldown is to 24fps. The math is pretty simple, show every 4th frame twice (for 2 hz) and you'll have 12 additional frames for 60 total. It's not native 48fps of course as the cadence is slightly uneven, but it's no different to watching a movie on display without a 24fps mode. With a 60hz signal, any NTSC display could handle it, so you wouldn't need a new TV. It's a software problem, so at worst you'd need a new Blu-ray player, at best you'd just need a firmware update.

People who want the unreality of 24 fps can always get that. Many of us want to move on to something better.

The only argument against 48 fps is that it looks too realistic. However, 3D brings new challenges, requirements, and advantages. Compare side by side 3D to frame packed and you see big improvement in the higher resolution. Higher temporal resolution gives even more improvement to 3D. (My home 3D videos look a lot better in 720p 60hz than in 1080 24p when there is a lot of motion or panning.) 48 fps is a boon to 3D. I see opponents to 48fps lining up with opponents to 3D because they do not get it.

Judder will be awful, especially on panning. Nothing like 3:2 pulldown on 24 fps. You can get an idea of how bad it will be if you download recordings of British or other European sports events an watch them on your 60 fps device.

this is a good way to get more people to go to theaters and watch movies as opposed to waiting for it to hit Blu-ray or streaming it...they should keep it it as an 'exclusive' and make the movie going experience something special again

So after reading this http://www.aintitcool.com/node/55212 I'm excited to experience what 48 fps is really like.

Here's some highlights:

"When I saw the HOBBIT trailer at 24fps in December at BNAT, there was something somewhat off. I felt it most directly in the bits that involved fast cutting and motion. My eyes had to do a lot of work to soak in everything they were seeing. Even after seeing it three times, I felt I'd missed things.

48fps makes those moments more fluid and clear, but there's something that people will absolutely hate about this upfront."

"The High Frame Rate Effect is something that will take getting used to, and some will absolutely reject it outright. Many will do so pre-emptively."

"This is a massive shift in visual clarity, composition, and perception. Like I said, if you thought 2D versus 3D has been fun, this is a quantum jump into another realm of perception, and I expect the debate to be exponentially more heated."

Interesting. Is the judder so bad that it's actually unwatchable?

I think this will be a moot point. The studios aren't going to release 720 BD's because the public would see that as inferior and not "true" HD. I'll bet that The Hobbit and all future 48fps films will be released at 1080/24p on BD.

I have zero time for arguments that 48FPS results in images that are "too accurate" or "too clear". To me it just a bit of a naff argument. In my opinion the clearer the images are the better. The more real it looks, the more immersive the experience. That's why I like 3D too, its that much more immersive.

I will reserve judgement until I see if for myself but I want to hear more well reasoned arguments against 48FPS than we have been given by a "rival projectionist" who may well have an axe to grind where the new frame rate is concerned.

People can be very disingenuous at times when voicing an opinion on something a rival presents or produces! Others just don't like change where cinema is concerned but I think they do more harm than good frankly. If people like that had there way we would still be watching silent mono chrome images.

I agree, it's hard to imagine a 720p Blu-ray of any kind being marketed. However, the bandwidth problem will be overcome with the next generation of HDMI soon enough, allowing 1080p60fps. The big question is if a 48fps Blu-ray will be feasible at that point without needing a new TV and new Blu-ray player.

I know nothing of film making. But I do have a rule for myself. I want to see things the way a director intended it. I only hate the motion interpolation on televisions when its with something that wasn't intended to look that way. If the Hobbit is meant for 48fps, that's good enough for me. End of story.

Until such time that Hollywood embraces HFR (high frame rate) productions, it is nothing more then an experiment at this time.

HDMI already has PLENTY of bandwidth for 1080p/48 or 1080p/60 (even 4K). The BD specification (system) doesn't support 1080p/60 or 1080p/48. So it will HAVE to be 1080p/24 (dropping ever other frame). No current HDTV (or BD player) supports 1080p/48 so you would need a new TV and something more advanced than BD playback (since the BD system doesn't support). The BD standard won't be changed just to add 1080/48fps compatibility (since it wouldn't be backwards TV compatible and VERY consumer confusing). The next spec update to BD (if it happens) will be to 4K.

At the same time TV manufactures aren't going to just add 1080p/48 support since that wouldn't sell. 4K is the next selling point for TV's also.

I don't think you'll get the "soap opera" effect with 48fps in 3D after thinking about it. As it is the 3D movies i've seen have horrendous motion resolution. In games, i turn off motion blurring effects because the 3D, even at 120fps (60 per eye) causes enough blurr during motion all by itself on my Sony NX711 which has an average pixel response time.

I agree. Innovative directors like Martin Scorsese and James Cameron have already demonstrated what can be done with 3D. Those who second guess Peter Jackson had better come loaded for bear, because he knows what he is doing. He's making a movie at 48fps in 3D, and that's the way I want to see it.

Sorry, I meant 1080p60fps 3D.

For those interested there is a good thread on this over at NeoGAF.

One of the posters has a Red camera and shot some 24p and 48p video as a comparison. Links are in the first post.

Personally I can't wait for The Hobbit. I think it will look fantastic in 3D at 48FPS.

I think this is gonna not change a thing. I think people who like 3d still will and those who don't aren't going to even know or care what 48fps even is.