some late comments on 48 fps and 3D

erynion

erynion

Lorien
I saw the Hobbit at the cinema in 3D 4 times and though I was paying attention to try to see a difference, I must say I didn't. I don't know why, maybe because I haven't seen many movies in 3D on the whole and I'm not used to taking it all in as is, let alone with twice the usual frames. (I tend to avoid 3D as I find it distracts from the story and sort of "tells me" where to look too much. Also, I wear glasses, so it's annoying to have to wear two pairs.)

Anyway, so I didn't previously notice the 48 fps difference then, but tonight, watching AUJ on DVD, I did.

And... I liked it! I must say I totally know what people meant when they said "It looks like a home video", but what I think they were trying to express in this derogatory way was that it looks more like real life. In real life, things never happen as slowly as they do in traditional movies, you have little to no reaction time, and cheap home video cameras bring that across better than standard movie cameras. No idea why, but I bet a professional could tell me. In any case, that is the impression. Of course, picture quality sucks on home videos, because they're not filmed with professional film cameras... and that's why I felt AUJ was actually great filmed this way. Because they're using this technology that (however it works - can you tell I'm an expert? I've never burgled anything in my life!) makes things run at a lifelike speed, but to the highest possible standard. So what could possibly look better than a "home video" of Middle Earth? It made me feel closer to the characters.

Conclusion: for what it's worth, this random person gives 48 fps the thumbs up.

(Mind, my girlfriend still didn't notice the difference. lol)

Something I DID think about not seeing AUJ in 3D for the first time... I'm not sure how it works, but was it filmed in 3D and then converted into 2D? Because sometimes it looks a little sort of... transparent. Like a watercolour. Which makes me think of Alan Lee, but seems a little odd. Neh, not sure how I feel about 3D. XD
 
Last edited:
since 3D is shot with two cameras, for 2D all they have to do is choose the footage from just one of the cameras. How they choose (do they just choose, say, the right camera, and go with that all the time? Do they look at both, and choose what looks best?), i don't know. Hopefully, we get a lot of information on The Hobbit's 3D in the EE documentaries.
 
Last edited:
I love this frame rate – I've seen it in 2D (once), 3D (twice after the 48 HFR disappeared) and about ten times in 3D HFR. For myself, I don't know what all the fuss was about.

The format I liked the least was the 3D (I'm not a great lover of 3D normally). The film was blurred in places, and too dark, although the second time I saw it in this format, in a tiny cinema in the West End of London, it looked much better.
 
I have watched the film on my parent's Smart TV. I said a couple of weeks ago how amazing the quality was - it's like watching the film in 2D but at the same quality as 48fps.

There is very, very little blur at all.
 
And obviously, you don't get all the full advantages of 48fps, but the quality is better than I was ever expecting. Even on my TV, there is less blur. I really disliked the film in 48fps in 3D, but the motion blur in the film in 2D (in the cinema) was really obvious. When I watch it on my parents TV, it's just "better". It's not 3D 48fps quality, but neither is it 2D 24fps. There's something about it that makes it "better".

Is it because the original film was filmed in 48fps? I have no idea.
 
Last edited:
Yes you still have the motion artifacts between the 24 frames. But as the original 48fps would have sharper individual frames from faster shutter speed so should the over all look of the 24fps.
 
one of the main advantages of higher frame rates is that it causes less eye strain for viewers when watching 3D. One of the biggest problems with 3D today is that it causes a lot of people eyestrain. Partly this is due to the dim image (compared with a 2D film) and partly it is because of the strobing inherent in low frame rates. Most people I talked to found the 48fps 3D version much easier on their eyes than other 3D films.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top