or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › 'The Hobbit' will not be widely released in 48 FPS
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

'The Hobbit' will not be widely released in 48 FPS - Page 3

post #61 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Nothing more than a double flash. You do you they triple flash 24 fps 3D now right? 144Hz - 72Hz per eye (RealD 3D)
Native 48 fps 3D? I doubt it.

You're talking about refresh rate, I'm talking about different frames. 48 fps 3D movie, would every eye see 48 different frames per second?
post #62 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomoneh View Post

You're talking about refresh rate, I'm talking about different frames. 48 fps 3D movie, would every eye see 48 different frames per second?

It depends on how the movie is presented (which 3D presentation process is used). It's like when film projectors show 24 fps 2D content - they show it at 48 fps - each frame is shown twice.

Native 48 fps 3D can be shown at either 48 fps per eye or each frame is shown twice - 96 fps per eye.

As I said - with RealD, they take 24 fps per eye content and show it at 72 fps per eye - each frame is shown 3 times . . .

L1L1L1, R1R1R1, L2L2L2, R2R2R2 . . . etc. This avoids strobing.
post #63 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

It depends on how the movie is presented (which 3D presentation process is used). It's like when film projectors show 24 fps 2D content - they show it at 48 fps - each frame is shown twice.
Native 48 fps 3D can be shown at either 48 fps per eye or each frame is shown twice - 96 fps per eye.
So, there is no combination in which every eye ends up with half of original frames?
post #64 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

This was stated earlier in the thread, but I will repeat for emphasis: Blu-ray does not support 48 fps.
If you refuse to watch this movie in any format other than 48 fps, and you don't live near one of the two theaters that will play it in that format, then I guess you will never see this movie.

I didn't say that BD supported 48 fps, I just said I would wait to see it on BD.

My point being I am not going to bother seeing it in the theater if they change it.

I WOULD go see it in the theater in 48fps. biggrin.gif
post #65 of 266
As with all new tech, I would like to see this myself before I make judgement. Interesting for sure.
post #66 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomoneh View Post

So, there is no combination in which every eye ends up with half of original frames?

No. The minimum would be the native frame rate per eye.

We are talking about commerical theaters here - not consumer or home video stuff.
Edited by Lee Stewart - 8/10/12 at 1:12pm
post #67 of 266
I've seen 3D trailers for this movie at the theater, looked good to me.
post #68 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Could you use a FW update to make your BD SAL player a 3D BD SAL player? No you couldn't.
Has it been confirmed that 3D players dont have enough bandwidth?
Quote:
And which 3DTV display can handle 48 fps?
Hmm not sure whats the issue here. PC gamers have been playing 3D 1080p games at above 30fps for awhile.
post #69 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssjLancer View Post


Hmm not sure whats the issue here. PC gamers have been playing 3D 1080p games at above 30fps for awhile.

Based on my 30 seconds of sloppy research, I think you are correct, with a caveat that televisions would need a new firmware to support 48fps input, with the implication being that older sets might never get it. Strangely enough, it was another Hobbit thread where this was discussed. Here's a link: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1328745/will-movies-filmed-in-48fps-require-new-home-theater-equipment

Not surprisingly, that thread degenerates into a pissing contest over whether or not higher frame rates are better. This thread has been much better behaved IMHO. Some guy over there started things off by basically accusing film purists of liking a bad picture... pure troll bait.
post #70 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssjLancer View Post

Has it been confirmed that 3D players dont have enough bandwidth?

What are the specs for 48 fps 3D BD?
Quote:
Hmm not sure whats the issue here. PC gamers have been playing 3D 1080p games at above 30fps for awhile.

I am talking about a 3DTV that will accept a native 48 fps 3D signal. Please link for me any 3DTV currently on the market that will accept and display such a signal.
post #71 of 266
I couldn't care less about 3D, but 2D at 48fps+ is of great interest to me. I'm so tired of seeing terrible image judder in modern, high action films and during simple panning sequences. If anything tires my eyes and takes me out of the film, it's that. I'm hoping that the excellent Dolby Atmos and 48fps+ are the future of cinema. It would represent a massive improvement and make it worth going out to the theater again.
post #72 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by gremmy View Post

Based on my 30 seconds of sloppy research, I think you are correct, with a caveat that televisions would need a new firmware to support 48fps input, with the implication being that older sets might never get it. Strangely enough, it was another Hobbit thread where this was discussed. Here's a link: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1328745/will-movies-filmed-in-48fps-require-new-home-theater-equipment

I dont think they would even need a firmware update. It wont be perfect probably the same way BD doesnt look perfect when watching it on a 60hz tv. But its still capable.
It isnt an hdmi issue, and afaik todays 3DTVs should be at least as capable as $150 3D computer monitors.
"HDMI allows any video format timing to be transmitted and displayed."
https://engineering.purdue.edu/477grp10/Datasheets/CEC_HDMI_Specification.pdf
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

What are the specs for 48 fps 3D BD?

If there is one it probably wont be announced until The hobbit is near video release.
Quote:
I am talking about a 3DTV that will accept a native 48 fps 3D signal. Please link for me any 3DTV currently on the market that will accept and display such a signal.

Again can you tell me the specific issue here?
Are you saying 30fps+ 1080p 3D doesnt exist in PC games or isnt the same, or are you saying these 3D monitors are more capable than todays 3D HDTVs?
post #73 of 266
If 48fps ruins the cinematic look like frame interpolation does then it's no good and I hope they don't release it in that format.
post #74 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssjLancer View Post

If there is one it probably wont be announced until The hobbit is near video release.

Right . . . if. The BDA is going to spend the time to create a new standard for BD based on 3 movies. rolleyes.gif
Quote:
Again can you tell me the specific issue here?
Are you saying 30fps+ 1080p 3D doesnt exist in PC games or isnt the same, or are you saying these 3D monitors are more capable than todays 3D HDTVs?

It was a simple request. Show a link to a current 3DTV that will accept a native 48 fps 3D video signal. Can you do that please. This has nothing to do with PC games. It's a movie.
post #75 of 266
I do think it's likely that it would need a firmware update. It's not an HDMI issue at all. It's an inboard video processor issue. The TV's inboard processor has to know how to map the incoming signal for display. Software tells the set how to do that. It's the same reason that many televisions couldn't display native 24fps. It's no different.

Take an example that I dealt with a couple of years ago:

1) I owned a Blu Ray player that could output 24fps
2) I owned many Blu Ray discs mastered in 24fps
3) I owned an HDMI cable that had no problem whatsoever carrying a 1080p/24 signal

4) But, when I fed 1080p/24 to my Sony projector, I got a bank screen. Why? The projector COULD NOT DISPLAY 24fps. The software inside the set had no idea what to make of that incoming frame rate. After a firmware update, it worked... well, it SORT of worked. There were some visual issues still, one of which required an actual hardware replacement.

So I think if you're just assuming that any TV you happen to own will display incoming 48fps with no problems, you're likely making a mistake, unless the TV is already spec'd to deal with it.


P.S.

Do you actually have a game that you can run at 48fps? If so, run it out to the TV at that framerate and see what happens.
Edited by gremmy - 8/11/12 at 5:30pm
post #76 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by gremmy View Post

I do think it's likely that it would need a firmware update. It's not an HDMI issue at all. It's an inboard video processor issue. The TV's inboard processor has to know how to map the incoming signal for display. Software tells the set how to do that. It's the same reason that many televisions couldn't display native 24fps. It's no different.
Take an example that I dealt with a couple of years ago:
1) I owned a Blu Ray player that could output 24fps
2) I owned many Blu Ray discs mastered in 24fps
3) I owned an HDMI cable that had no problem whatsoever carrying a 1080p/24 signal
4) But, when I fed 1080p/24 to my Sony projector, I got a bank screen. Why? The projector COULD NOT DISPLAY 24fps. The software inside the set had no idea what to make of that incoming frame rate. After a firmware update, it worked... well, it SORT of worked. There were some visual issues still, one of which required an actual hardware replacement.
So I think if you're just assuming that any TV you happen to own will display incoming 24fps with no problems, you're likely making a mistake.
If you doubt it, go get an outboard video processor and set it to output at 48fps and feed it to the TV and see what happens.

It isn't 48 fps. It's 48 fps 3D - a totally different signal. That's a massive amount of data with a very high bandwidth in a format that doesn't yet exist for home video.

And Frame Packed 48 fps 3D BD doesn't exist within either HDMI specs or BDA specs

To make 3D BD work, they had to change the BD drive from normal speed to 2X speed. It may be a case where to offer 48 fps on 3D BD, they will have to once again up the drive speed to like 4X. No firmware upgrade will accomplish that.
post #77 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

It isn't 48 fps. It's 48 fps 3D - a totally different signal.

Fair enough. Even more reason why one should be leery of accepting blindly that their TV will be able to handle the signal, which was the point I was attempting to make.

I personally think that even without the 3D, there's no certainty that a TV will accept a standard 48fps signal. I'm not saying it wouldn't. I'm simply saying that I wouldn't count on it unless I had tried it or the TV was spec'd for it.

So per the poster's question about what the specific issue would be:

1) The software might not support it. This is where the firmware upgrade would come in.
2) The hardware might not support it, per Lee's post. In that case, nevermind #1.
Edited by gremmy - 8/11/12 at 6:09pm
post #78 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by gremmy View Post

I'm not forgetting it. Also, I'm not the one judging it. The implication that I got from the article was that the people who actually saw it thought the sets looked like sets specifcially because of the 48 fps. This fits with what I know of higher frame rates on 2D material.
The sets looked like sets because they had green screen elements and had not been added image background, texture and color grading. The negative reactions was very much based on peoples lack of knowledge.
I think it was a mistake by Jackson to show such unfinished work at such high image quality. But the showing was really for Cinema owners to convince them to invest in HFR equipment. Some wrong people was obviously admitted.
Quote:
There was also the suggestion that post production work might help... but if that's the case, I'm curious what type of production work that would be. Would it be work specifically aimed at toning down the visual impact of the higher frame rate?Certainly if post production work always helped in this regard, regardless of the framerate, these people would be used to seeing "sets that look like sets" and would not have attributed it to the framerate -- either that or the people actually collecting the data would have known.
But either way, until one of us actually sees a 3D film at 48 fps, this is all speculation. Perhaps we can both agree to reserve judgment for the time being.

This is what Peter Jackson said in an interview in April, which should explain the difference between unfinished material with just a simple "Look" and finished material.
Quote:
Jackson himself has grown accustomed to watching 48fps imagery. He watches dailies in 48 frames every day, sometimes two hours worth.

"You get used to it reasonably quickly,” he said, commenting that now when he views traditional 24 frames footage, “I’m very aware of the strobing, the flicker and the artifacts."

“We have obviously seen cuts of our movie at 48 and in a relatively short amount of time you have forgotten (the frame rate change). It is a more immersive and in 3D a gentler way to see the film.”

Jackson also explained the footage presented at Cinemacon would look different once it goes through the post-production process.

Because production is not scheduled to wrap until July, the customary postproduction that affects the overall look of a film has not yet been done, so the clips were unfinished. They were not yet color corrected, nor had the visual effects been completed. (In various scenes the actors were shown performing in front of a greenscreen.)

Jackson explained that his original The Lord of the Rings used various postproduction techniques to create a certain look for the movies, including “extensive” digital color grading, “added texture, and we took out highlights."

“We’ll do the same with The Hobbit, to make it consistent and give it the feeling of otherworldliness – to get the mood, the tone, the feel of the different scenes,” he said. “We are certainly going to experiment with different finishing techniques to give the 48 frames a look that is more organic. But that work isn’t due to start until we wrap photography in July (both Hobbit films are being shot simultaneously)."

More; http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/peter-jackson-the-hobbit-cinemacon-317755


Quote:
Originally Posted by javanpohl View Post

Anybody happen to know what projectors they had on hand for the comic-con material and, more importantly, if they could natively project 48 fps (or, more likely 96 fps)? I'm holding on to the hope that the negative reactions were caused by frame interpolation and not necessarily the 48 fps. I say this because I have long been looking forward to increasing the frame rates for movies but have also abhorrently despised the dreaded "soap opera" look... I'll take panning blur over the soap opera look any day, so I hope this isn't really the trade-off.

It was shown the way it should ultimately be shown, for those that will be so lucky. cool.gif

Dual 4K projectors in 48fps for each eye. The press release from Christie doesn't specify that the projectors was 4K, but as this was an Industrial showing where they wanted to show their "latest and the greatest", I assume they brought out their Series-2 4K version. All series-2 projectors (Christie, Barco & Nec) can easely be upgraded to 4K.
Important point here about increased light levels and equal light levels at the width of the screen for 3D.
Quote:
Christie Duo™ combined with the new RealD XL-DP Cinema System today to project Warner Bros. Pictures’ “Sneak Peek” of The Hobbit in 3D, presented at High Frame Rates (HFR) of 48 frames per second, achieving an unprecedented combination of uniformity and brightness. Christie®, a global visual technology company, and RealD, a leading global licensor of 3D technologies, powered today’s major studio presentation in the Colosseum at Caesars Palace.

In the setup for this presentation, projection engineers calibrated the system using brightness measurements taken towards the edges of the screen, rather than at the center. The abundance of light available allowed the center brightness to be reduced considerably and still provided luminance measurements in excess of six foot lamberts (ft-L) across the better part of this massive 70-foot-wide screen. By combining the Christie Duo and the RealD XL-DP 3D Cinema System, exhibitors can actually achieve double the light output over the previous leading large format solutions, and at a significant overall value during regular, commercial movie showings.

“With the new RealD XL-DP Cinema System, there is a technical solution for achieving 3D brightness at 2D light levels on some of the largest movie theater screens in the world,”
http://www.dcinematoday.com/dc/pr.aspx?newsID=2784
http://www.dcinematoday.com/dc/PR.aspx?newsID=2763

Edited by coolscan - 8/23/12 at 2:17am
post #79 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

It was shown the way it should ultimately be shown, for those that will be so lucky. cool.gif
Dual 4K projectors in 48fps for each eye. The press release from Christie doesn't specify that the projectors was 4K, but as this was an Industrial showing where they wanted to show their "latest and the greatest", I assume they brought out their Series-2 4K version. All series-2 projectors (Christie, Barco & Nec) can easely be upgraded to 4K.
Important point here about increased light levels and equal light levels at the width of the screen for 3D.

AFAIK, they were Christie dual 2K (or 4k running in 2K mode) projectors showing 48 fps 3D. They can't do 4K 48 fps 3D yet.
post #80 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

The sets looked like sets because they had green screen elements and had not been added image background, texture and color grading. The negative reactions was very much based on peoples lack of knowledge.
I think it was a mistake by Jackson to show such unfinished work at such high image quality. But the showing was really for Cinema owners to convince them to invest in HRF equipment. Some wrong people was obviously admitted.

I realized that the work wasn't finished, but I didn't realize they would be so short-sighted so as to show a Franken-film to a bunch of people who lacked the knowledge to know it was still a work in progress. I guess I can understand he was probably between a rock in a hard place: on one side the need to get theater owners to invest in equipment by the time his film debuts, on the other the lack of anything finished to show them. I'm not saying I have the answer or even that one exists, but this definitely wasn't it.

I mean, what the heck is the point of trying to impress people with 48fps who don't already intuitively understand the benefit of all the other missing elements? They're sitting there trying to evaluate something without having the slightest inkling of how to judge the impact that one thing is having on what they are seeing. Clearly the only way to get that type of audience to open their wallets is to show them something that is CLEARLY worth the investment, and that means controlling every variable that can be controlled, and that means showing them something that is not only FINISHED, but which is specifically framed to highlight the new technology.
Edited by gremmy - 8/12/12 at 5:52pm
post #81 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

AFAIK, they were Christie dual 2K (or 4k running in 2K mode) projectors showing 48 fps 3D. They can't do 4K 48 fps 3D yet.

No problem running 4K projectors in 48fps. Dual projectors, both with an integrated IMB which are synced, running 4K 48fps becomes 3D.
Quote:
Christie®, a global visual technology company, today introduced the Christie® IMB, an integrated media block solution that seamlessly converts and delivers feature-film and alternative content within a secure environment to all of Christie’s 2K and 4K, DCI-compliant Solaria® Series 2 projectors.

“Most digital projector installations use a media block in an external server that is linked by cables to the projector,” said Don Shaw, senior director, Entertainment Solutions, Christie. “This creates bandwidth limitations that have an impact on picture quality, and restrict the system’s ability to offer higher frame rates and increased pixel resolution. The Christie IMB operates within the projector, becoming an integral part of the display device. The result is a secure connection that can manage the high bandwidth required for HFR and 4K content while maintaining terrific image quality.”
http://www.dcinematoday.com/dc/PR.aspx?newsID=2763


Quote:
Originally Posted by gremmy View Post

I mean, what the heck is the point of trying to impress people with 48fps who don't already intuitively understand the benefit of all the other missing elements? They're sitting there trying to evaluate something without having the slightest inkling of how to judge the impact that one thing is having on what they are seeing. Clearly the only way to get that type of audience to open their wallets is to show them something that is CLEARLY worth the investment, and that means controlling every variable that can be controlled, and that means showing them something that is not only FINISHED, but which is specifically framed to highlight the new technology.
Jackson needed them to say WOW. He didn't need them to say, "Uh, that kinda looked like crap."
So yeah, I agree with you. Someone made a huge mistake.
The people Tweeting and writing critical about this was not Cinema industry people, but journalists and bloggers. The mistake was that they where there.
It is possible that Warner underestimated the knowledge of the media types the admitted, or underestimated the "passion" of the 48fps debate.
The exhibition of The Hobbit HFR material have been done several other places in the world without these reactions.

I followed some projectionists on a Projectionist forum, and non of them mistook the unfinished material, or had any type of critical reaction that the (very few) media types had.

There are a lot of nonsense, passion and noise in the "24fps versus 48fps" debate. All reports from Cinemacon was positive to the outdoor scenes but was critical to the more unfinished finished Studio scenes. And if someone "needs a nail to hang their argument on", what would be more "obvious" than to hang it on the "48fps nail".

When the first movie is released I predict we will see a lot of similar critics of 48fps, and much of it from people that have no idea that they have just seen the film in 24fps. 3D.

So when we see posters here in December criticising The Hobbit for being shot in 48fps, I hope people here are persistent on asking the critical people to show some proof they actually was at a 48fps show.
It has been typical till now when people describe their 3D cinema experience that they have seen movie under very different conditions. It will nor become less with The Hobbit.

Peter Jackson is a great director and very much a technical cinematic nerd. He said recently he wanted to shoot LOTR in 70mm because of the increased image quality, but had to drop the idea because there where no lab in New Zealand that could develope the 70mm, so they would have to send the film back and forth between NZ and LA, which would have slowed things down too much.

This time he has the resolution in digital. What he want to do is to make the screen to "become a window into Middle Earth". This will look very very different from what people are used to in movies.

This is a very daring approach to such material. At the same time, it is a "high profile enough" movie that can move image development in the movie world forward.

I predict that the 24fps 2K 2D version will look very different than all the 3D versions. Not because of framerate, but because of the finished look the different versions will have (contrast, color intensity etc.).
Edited by coolscan - 8/23/12 at 2:18am
post #82 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

No problem running 4K projectors in 48fps. Dual projectors, both with an integrated IMB which are synced, running 4K 48fps becomes 3D.

That's not what your link says:
Quote:
The combination of the Christie CP4220 or Christie CP4230 projectors and Christie IMB, offered by the world’s largest manufacturer of digital cinema projectors, brings exhibitors ultimate confidence that they will be ready for upcoming 4K or 3D HFR movies in a single projector system. The first HFR feature film, The Hobbit, is scheduled for release in December 2012.

And there is this article which also says it's not ready yet:
Quote:
The easiest upgrade is for a series 2 projector that already has an IMB; in that case, the switch to 48 fps is just a software upgrade. Most recent "Series 2" installed used IMBs.

Each of the makers of the most popular 3D projection systems (RealD, MasterImage, Xpand and Dolby) says its systems are either HFR ready or easily upgradable, though several doubt each others' claims. One thing that won't be happening soon is a combination of 4K resolution -- which is already in some theaters -- 3D and high frame rates. Today's gear and networks can't handle that much data.

"That's going to be a forklift upgrade when that comes about," said Shaw. "That would require a full-scale replacement of all of the equipment in a movie theater."

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118057587
Edited by Lee Stewart - 8/12/12 at 1:33pm
post #83 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

All reports from Cinemacon was positive to the outdoor scenes but was critical to the more unfinished finished Studio scenes

Not so strange no matter how you look at it, since one of the benefit of 24fps is that it help mask studiosettings. Its easier to spot fake scenery the more real the footage look. I have seen the same thing on several 50i drama, outdoor footage always looked better(less fake) then indoor footage.

So I guess its not just a question of greenscreen or colorgrading.
post #84 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Not so strange no matter how you look at it, since one of the benefit of 24fps is that it help mask studiosettings. Its easier to spot fake scenery the more real the footage look. I have seen the same thing on several 50i drama, outdoor footage always looked better(less fake) then indoor footage.
So I guess its not just a question of greenscreen or colorgrading.

Yours is a slightly different take on the argument I was making earlier, and I think you have a good point. In addition to giving the image a more literal look, it may in fact simply be more revealing. I do wonder whether there is actually more detail visible on screen or if the problem is that the brain interprets the motion as more literal and therefore is less willing to suspend disbelief. If the latter, I am hopeful that the effect of 3D (which tends to be non-literal), will negate the impact. If the former, the art department is going to have to do a better job than usual.
post #85 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

That's not what your link says:
And there is this article which also says it's not ready yet:
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118057587

You misunderstand a little. (some misunderstanding on the part of Variety too, which is not important enough to discuss)

It's true that 4K 3D HRF from One Projector can't be done yet, but will in the future.
But 4K 48fps 2D can be done on one projector.
The Cinemacon show (Dual Christie Solaris series-2) and what I talk about is; TWO 4K projectors each running at 48fps in 2D where the IMB's are synced.
As you know; Two projectors each showing 2D on one screen make 3D.
(Just the way it's filmed, with two separate cameras shooting 48fps 2D each, in a "3D mirror rig" makes a 3D (and 2D) movie.)

This is how (I guess) The Hobbit will be shown at those prestigious "by Invitation Only" pre-show Premiers for media and celebrities in places like New Zealand, LA and London.
The ultimate way of seeing The Hobbit the way Peter Jackson envisions the imagery.
(maybe IMAX and Cinemark XD will have some of these dual rigs on their largest screens?)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Not so strange no matter how you look at it, since one of the benefit of 24fps is that it help mask studiosettings. Its easier to spot fake scenery the more real the footage look. I have seen the same thing on several 50i drama, outdoor footage always looked better(less fake) then indoor footage.
So I guess its not just a question of greenscreen or colorgrading.

Huge difference between 50i shot on small sensor video cameras and 5K RAW in latitude and freedom in what you can do to change the original image into something believable and "otherworldly".
There is a huge image quality increase in 48fps when there is much movement in the picture.
With little or no movement, it is hard to see difference between 24fps and 48fps.

But of course The Hobbit will overall look different from much of "conventional movies", which is the the purpose.

What I was most critical to when it comes to the debate from Cinemacon is that the several BTS video diaries films that has been posted to the web has shown scenes which is supposed to happen in nature (typical the forest scenes with the dwarfs) but are shot in studios.
This breaks the illusion and should not have been shown before eventual extra material on Home Media. Now everybody will look for signs of this studio work scenes.

Huge Mistake by Peter Jackson.
post #86 of 266
I believe ZERO that comes from the studio that still says nothing is wrong with the color on the extended FELLOWSHIP Blu-Ray.

This is why I don't for a moment buy into the footage first shown will look totally awesomely brilliant later on when it is 'color corrected.'

We will all know soon enough (well, some of us will) what these films look like at 48fps but I am absolutely certain I will not see THE HOBBIT at that higher frame rate the first time. I will go and see it in 2D at 24fps and should I enjoy the film, i'll be back to witness the hype and it it's smoke and mirrors or a game changer.
post #87 of 266
There is a term which basically explains the entire first page of comments. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley
post #88 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

What are the specs for 48 fps 3D BD?
I am talking about a 3DTV that will accept a native 48 fps 3D signal. Please link for me any 3DTV currently on the market that will accept and display such a signal.

3d 120hz native has been around for years, and many setups out there are doing 5760x1080p resolution, 3d and 120hz native. The problem is the only source material that is available to the common man is realtime rendering, IE games.

Tons of youtube proof of this with triple monitor iracing setups running in 3d at HFR (many above 100fps)

An example display is http://www.asus.com/Display/LCD_Monitors/VG236H/#overview

Basically the fullsize TV's for the home theatre market are intentionally left handicapped. I have no doubt that any modern 120hz LED display tv could also accept a 120hz 3d signal if the designers werent planning to release the spec later on once current technology sales cooled down.
post #89 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonathanc View Post

There is a term which basically explains the entire first page of comments. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley

That certainly explains why I've never invited a zombie to dinner.
post #90 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by gremmy View Post

That certainly explains why I've never invited a zombie to dinner.

You make Rob sad. frown.gif

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › 'The Hobbit' will not be widely released in 48 FPS