After going to The Hobbit marathon, i want HFR (48fps) to die!

MosquitoSmasher

MosquitoSmasher

Well-Known Member
Sep 13, 2013
4,405
959
1,830
So last tuesday i went to the marathon of The Hobbit in the cinema. I had only seen the first one, so the other two would be new for me. All these movies were in HFR (High Framerate 48fps), when i saw that on the movieticket i thought....ooh cool! This should be great. WRONG! It ruined the movies for me bigtime. I did not get immersed at all into Middle-earth, it was like i was on the set myself and the whole idea of watching a movie, not a f***ing documentary was gone. In gaming, the higher the framerate the better, for damn sure, in movies...please keep it at 24fps.

Sure it's nice to not see any of those judders/stutters when the camera pans around, but it also cheapens the overall look of the movie immensely. People seem to move unrealistic fast and overall it all looks very very off. There's a good article that explains it more and i couldn't agree more:

http://gizmodo.com/5969817/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-masterclass-in-why-48-fps-fails

Today i felt sick, was not gonna play games or anything like that. So i decided to watch The Desolation of Smaug again, this time on Netflix and of course no HFR. Guess what....i freaking loved it. Just like 3D should have died by now (f***ing cinemas here forcing you to watch it only in 3D) i want HFR to go away asap too. If it does become the new standard, please let us have the option for 24fps too.
 
Yeah, there's definitely a difference in quality. I think the Hobbit is proof that a higher frame rate is not needed in the film industry. Not even animated films.
 
I saw The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey in HFR and 3D together. Ill never do that again.
 
Agree with the HFR, disagree with 3D. I watched DawnOTPOTAs and Guardians of The Galaxy at home in 3D bluray and it was amazing I doubt I will watch the 2D versions.
 
I really don't understand the whole "this movie doesn't look good enough because the frame rate doesn't look terrible enough." "It looks so real it looks fake." I all that much don't get it. And yet people rush out and buy the new 240Hz TV "because it looks smoother." But I would be lying outright if I said I didn't notice the issues too. One thing that I did notice is that there is still a lot of camera blur in the 48p version which does have an odd look. If you have a 48p version, I believe it should have less camera blur than what tradition 24p movies have; because I'm sure 24p movies have used that blur intentionally to cover up the stuttering that comes with 24 frames a second, but with 48p, that should no longer be needed. Also I think these theaters may be digital projectors that are interpolating from 48p to 60p, which again can and does ruin image quality due to uneven frame transitions. I think these are possible issues that need to be addressed before large scale adaptation.
 
Last edited:
I read an article that Peter Jackson seemed dead set on making HFR the new standard, he seems to believe people just need to get used to it. Apparently he said People will be singing a different tune after seeing The Hobbit in HFR. Sorry Peter, saw em all three...never again like that.

Still i see plenty of praise for HFR too on other forums and that is what slightly worries me. If the majority of people are going to love it and only a few dislike it...will we eventually only see HFR movies?
 
For the record I hate 120/240hz TV sets. I call it the SOAP OPERA effect. I also do not like the 48 HFR. Movies work really well at 24fps because it is just enough to suspend disbelief.

http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2012...a-reaffirmation-of-what-makes-cinema-magical/

In my opinion, film is not necessarily about WHAT you see – but it’s almost more an exercise in what you DON’T or CAN’T see. The best Directors and DPs show you only what is relevant to the story and never introduce a random shot or character if they can at all avoid it. I’ve always preached that a director or photographer should INCLUDE elements in a frame or shots that add to the story, and EXCLUDE elements or shots that detract from it.

The reason the standard film projection rate of 24 frames per second works so well, is that it’s just a few frames faster than what the brain needs in order to be tricked into seeing what are effectively still images, appear to move on screen – it’s called the "Persistence of Vision Theory." In tandem with that important theory, the motion blur you get by shooting at 24 fps and (on a standard 180 degree shutter) at 1/48th of a second, is just as important in making something look "cinematic" as the lack of depth of field we get by using larger sensors, and bright lenses at large apertures. This is precisely why one should shoot at 1/50th of a second on their HDSLRs and use ND or neutral density filters to makes sure they don’t have too much depth of field and can also ensure they aren’t forced into shooting at higher shutter speeds.
Click to expand...
 
120/240Hz features are great for sports. Not so much movies. I assume 48FPS would be great for sport too.
 
Yea I can seeHFR being great for sports, concerts, docs, or anything else that's not meant to be a cinematic experience.
 
ALmost any movie that has 3D are 3D by default here now. You do not even picked it. Not a big deal for me.
 
I doesn't really bother me. Can't wait for 5 armies though.
 
Blurriness and stutters bothers me and give me headache sometimes. I love how HFR in the Hobbit trillogy makes everything sharper, clearer, and smoother. I will choose to watch HFR over 24 fps anytime. And guess what? The next 3 Avatar movies will be shot at 48 fps. Yay!!!
 
sharkboy1200 said:
Wait... they're making three more of those things? Well, I guess the first one was the most successful movie ever.
Click to expand...

Hahaha! I'm just laughing because I thought the exact same thing when I read that.

Titanic 2 would make more sense than 3 more Avatars, and that doesn't make any sense at all.
 
Zer0beaT said:
Hahaha! I'm just laughing because I thought the exact same thing when I read that.

Titanic 2 would make more sense than 3 more Avatars, and that doesn't make any sense at all.
Click to expand...
I'd actually like to see them make Titanic 2. That would genuinely interest because they'd really have to think outside the box for that one.
 
Videodrome said:
It's a James Cameron hit movie. Eventually, if will be followed with as many movies as The Terminator and make even less sense.


Click to expand...

True that. Not saying anything bad about it, but I did think Avatar was going to be one of those one time only type of movies. It'll be interesting to see how it does without the benefit of 3D hype it had at the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back