Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
2D is it 24fps?
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

Leaf of Mirkwood
Bree


Nov 26 2013, 12:39am

Post #1 of 28 (519 views)
Shortcut
2D is it 24fps? Can't Post

I don't know much about all the latest technology with how these movies are filmed, but with these hobbit movies, is the 2D done in 24 fps? I liked how the 2D looked last year in the theater. Is it only the 3D done in 48 fps?


droidsocket
Rivendell

Nov 26 2013, 12:44am

Post #2 of 28 (293 views)
Shortcut
Yes. [In reply to] Can't Post

There are 2D shows at 24fps. There are 3D shows at 24fps. And there are 3D shows at 48fps.

I wish they had 2D shows at 48fps. :(


Joe20
Lorien


Nov 26 2013, 12:45am

Post #3 of 28 (280 views)
Shortcut
Yep [In reply to] Can't Post

No 48fps in 2D.


Leaf of Mirkwood
Bree


Nov 26 2013, 12:58am

Post #4 of 28 (271 views)
Shortcut
... [In reply to] Can't Post

Thanks for the replies! So is it just not possible to do 48 fps with 2d?


Lindele
Gondor


Nov 26 2013, 1:17am

Post #5 of 28 (272 views)
Shortcut
High frame rate [In reply to] Can't Post

Or 48fps has nothing to do with 3d or 2d, but the reason PJ shot in 48fps was to lessen motion blur that can be especially hard on the eyes in 3d. So basically there isn't much of a point to project in 48fps in 2d.


Leaf of Mirkwood
Bree


Nov 26 2013, 1:46am

Post #6 of 28 (236 views)
Shortcut
Thanks [In reply to] Can't Post

Thanks for the reply, so basically the 48 was done for the benefit of the 3D experience.

Personally 3d gives me a motion-sick headache, so I avoided seeing it that way!


Lindele
Gondor


Nov 26 2013, 1:50am

Post #7 of 28 (232 views)
Shortcut
Well [In reply to] Can't Post

the idea of HFR is to eliminate motion sickness and make it more realistic. But yes, basically PJ wanted this film to be seen in HFR 3d, but gave regular 2d as an option


droidsocket
Rivendell

Nov 26 2013, 4:12am

Post #8 of 28 (199 views)
Shortcut
Well... [In reply to] Can't Post

To lessen motion blur is huge! Plus the clearity and smoothless all add to a life like image. In my opinion that is enough reason to have a 48fps 2D print.


Lindele
Gondor


Nov 26 2013, 4:28am

Post #9 of 28 (195 views)
Shortcut
Once again [In reply to] Can't Post

If it's clarity and lifelike you are looking for, I don't understand why you'd want 2d over 3d 48fps. 3d 48fps is the most lifelike image I've ever seen


droidsocket
Rivendell

Nov 26 2013, 5:39am

Post #10 of 28 (183 views)
Shortcut
Ok. But.. [In reply to] Can't Post

3D in a 3D movie is not really 3D. It's a function that tricks the brain into seeing artificial depth. Problem is my brain already deciphers depth so I don't need nor want to watch movies through sunglasses.

So back to 48fps.

3D 24fps = 12 frames per eye (the reason it looks horrible and has so much motion blur)

2D 24fps = 24 frames per eye

3D 48fps = 24 frames per eye (here is the advancement in motion blur)

With 2D 48fps we would see all 48 frames in both eyes. Superior in life like clarity.

Is you want read some of the work by Douglas Trumbull.


Fleuz
Lorien


Nov 26 2013, 6:06am

Post #11 of 28 (185 views)
Shortcut
A modified Glass should do the trick. [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Thanks for the replies! So is it just not possible to do 48 fps with 2d?


You Need glasses with 2 identical sides. Than you can watch the HFR 3D in 2D.


Estel78
Tol Eressea

Nov 26 2013, 7:31am

Post #12 of 28 (176 views)
Shortcut
Not true [In reply to] Can't Post

3D 24fps = 24 frames per eye

2D 24fps = 24 frames for both eyes

3D 48fps = 48 frames per eye


droidsocket
Rivendell

Nov 26 2013, 3:55pm

Post #13 of 28 (123 views)
Shortcut
you would [In reply to] Can't Post

still be looking through tinted glasses.


droidsocket
Rivendell

Nov 26 2013, 3:56pm

Post #14 of 28 (122 views)
Shortcut
Are 3D [In reply to] Can't Post

Are 3D projectors not projecting alternating images. One for each eye?


Fleuz
Lorien


Nov 26 2013, 4:02pm

Post #15 of 28 (119 views)
Shortcut
Shutter [In reply to] Can't Post

I think you mean home3d-projectors. Those use the shutter technique.
In Cinema You get those Polarisation glasses.
Search Wikipedia for that... ;)


droidsocket
Rivendell

Nov 26 2013, 4:11pm

Post #16 of 28 (115 views)
Shortcut
Ok so [In reply to] Can't Post

If that is the case ( if I'm wrong I won't argue. Lol) then why does 3d 24fps have worse motion blur then 2d 24fps?


Owain
Tol Eressea


Nov 26 2013, 4:33pm

Post #17 of 28 (105 views)
Shortcut
Yes it's possible... [In reply to] Can't Post

but the SMTPE has not approved a standard for 2D 48fps yet.

Middle Earth is New Zealand!

"Question everything, embrace the bad, and hold on to the good."


Owain
Tol Eressea


Nov 26 2013, 4:38pm

Post #18 of 28 (107 views)
Shortcut
I'd give HFR a try if you got a headache... [In reply to] Can't Post

The experience is a lot easier on the eyes because there is less flickering.

Since all movies are a sequence of frames being flashed in certain cycles/per second... the more frames you have projected per second, the less wear and tear.

In a very simplified analogy... imagine turing a light switch on and off 24 times in a second. Then imagine turning it off and on 48 times a second.

Middle Earth is New Zealand!

"Question everything, embrace the bad, and hold on to the good."


Fleuz
Lorien


Nov 26 2013, 4:54pm

Post #19 of 28 (101 views)
Shortcut
Don't get me wrong [In reply to] Can't Post

Some cinemas use the shutter technique. Especially those with TexasInstruments projectors. The Quality is Not as good as the polar tech.
Some People get headache from that Kind of projection.
Motion blur in 2D and 3D is the same. Just the HFR Version has less blur.


Ffnir
Rohan


Nov 26 2013, 4:57pm

Post #20 of 28 (103 views)
Shortcut
Does someone know why they are no digital release of the movie in HFR ? [In reply to] Can't Post

Is it even possible ?


Fleuz
Lorien


Nov 26 2013, 5:16pm

Post #21 of 28 (98 views)
Shortcut
Nope [In reply to] Can't Post

BluRay can't handle that framerate.
Maybe a Future Medium. Forgot the name...


There you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_Versatile_Disc

Sony and Panasonic also planning to develop a nextgen-disc.


(This post was edited by Fleuz on Nov 26 2013, 5:19pm)


Ffnir
Rohan


Nov 26 2013, 5:58pm

Post #22 of 28 (81 views)
Shortcut
And what about an online release ? Could it be done ? [In reply to] Can't Post

 


peterLF
Rivendell

Nov 27 2013, 12:26am

Post #23 of 28 (47 views)
Shortcut
HFR only to lessen motion blur in 3D? I don't think so... [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Or 48fps has nothing to do with 3d or 2d, but the reason PJ shot in 48fps was to lessen motion blur that can be especially hard on the eyes in 3d. So basically there isn't much of a point to project in 48fps in 2d.


I don't suspect it was to make it easier on the eyes he went with 48fps for the "cinematic" version of the film - it was to actually make scenes look better. After all - the 3D comes in a 24 fps version as well.

Problem is smaller cinemas don't own 3D equipment and even fewer HFR equipment. So it's just a way of not having to distribute the film in a dozen different formats... It already comes in (where I live):
24 fps 2D 5.1
24 fps 2D 7.1
24 fps 3D 5.1
24 fps 3D 7.1
HFR 3D 5.1
HFR 3D 7.1
HFR 3D Atmos

Adding 24 fps HFR (and probably in both 5.1 and 7.1 as well) would not be a small increase in cost.

The motion blur you get, especially with panning wide shots of landscapes is extremely ugly. It is one of my biggest problems with most movies nowadays. The added frames would do a LOT even for a 2D movie.

Needless to say 2D HFR Atmos would be my preferred way of watching the film - but sadly, the 3D fad haven't gone away yet. God I'm looking forward to that stuff to going away.


(This post was edited by Altaira on Dec 7 2013, 7:26pm)


peterLF
Rivendell

Nov 27 2013, 12:44am

Post #24 of 28 (43 views)
Shortcut
identical side 3D glasses available anywhere? [In reply to] Can't Post

You Need glasses with 2 identical sides. Than you can watch the HFR 3D in 2D.


I was thinking the same thing... Do you (or anyone) know if there is anybody making these somewhere?


dave_lf
Gondor

Nov 27 2013, 1:54am

Post #25 of 28 (41 views)
Shortcut
It certainly COULD be [In reply to] Can't Post

--the software can show you frames at whatever rate it's told to (as long as your hardware can keep up), but as far as I know, it hasn't been released that way.


(This post was edited by dave_lf on Nov 27 2013, 2:03am)

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.