eugene Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 @jefferoo i didn't get that last part, are you saying that the computer and computer monitor can't actually show 48 fps ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 remember when people were afraid to get their photograph taken because they thought it would steal their soul? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GORDO Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 remember when coca-cola had cocaine in it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent Member Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 Remember when music wasn't brickwalled? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaarg Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 Less frames per second makes visuals more humanly than too many. It's been proven by so many movies it's a fail to even discuss this. Any move that will have smoother moving about will have to be defined as a slightly different medium. What? I'm saying the difference is so big, the film with such motion will no longer be a film as we know it but something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 Remember when music wasn't brickwalled? Lots of music is not brickwalled still? Some music benefits from the production style? How many people here are jumping all over this before they've even given it a chance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent Member Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 Yeah, video. Similar to pal broadcast material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent Member Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 Remember when music wasn't brickwalled? Lots of music is not brickwalled still? Some music benefits from the production style? How many people here are jumping all over this before they've even given it a chance? Most of us! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent Member Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 Yeah, video. Similar to pal broadcast material. This is complete bullshit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 Yeah, video. Similar to pal broadcast material. This is complete bullshit. lolwut? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
encey Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 Remember when novels had omniscient narrators? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCM Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 @jefferooi didn't get that last part, are you saying that the computer and computer monitor can't actually show 48 fps ? yeah, can you even view 48 fps on anything other than a special projector/playback device thingamajig? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 Remember when novels had omniscient narrators? yeah, that was awesome! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 i have a feeling, i don't know if i'm right at all , but i feel like 48 fps will 'fix' the problem of flickering 3d glasses effects on normal 24 fps movies. Since it has such smoother movements i don't know if one would experience the same defocusing/choppy effect sometimes seen during fast movement in 3d movies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azatoth Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 i have a feeling, i don't know if i'm right at all , but i feel like 48 fps will 'fix' the problem of flickering 3d glasses effects on normal 24 fps movies. Since it has such smoother movements i don't know if one would experience the same defocusing/choppy effect sometimes seen during fast movement in 3d movies. I think that's the main reason why Jackson opted to do it in 48fps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 i have a feeling, i don't know if i'm right at all , but i feel like 48 fps will 'fix' the problem of flickering 3d glasses effects on normal 24 fps movies. Since it has such smoother movements i don't know if one would experience the same defocusing/choppy effect sometimes seen during fast movement in 3d movies. this is case... and is why Cameron is shooting Avatar2/3 at 60fps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
encey Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 Remember when IDM had snare rushes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCM Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 this reminds me of that time when thy detontated the first nuclear bomb etc etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kokoon Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 Oh come on guys, it's not magic. It's just Peter Jackson doing his end of deal with some (all?) of the tv set manufacturers. Yeah, you can't view 48p video correctly on any commercially available tv set today. The first thing to check is the refresh rate and it would have to be a multiplier of 48 (48, 96, 192, 384...) and the same goes for computer displays. Any other rate and you'll have some pull-down pattern going on that will mess up the cadence. And here comes the next hdmi version, bluray players, ... Want to eliminate motion blur? Just shoot with a shorter shutter than the standard 180deg. It's been done, a lot. In 24p. And how will it look in 48p? Probably less awkward than MCFI (motion-compensated frame interpolation, that how that crap is really called) enhanced video, but still nothing like film. And that's a shame, because I like film. I 'm not saying it won't sell (the argument about how people like Cameron and Jackson SURELY know a thing or two about "the trade"), but that's a different rant. I am very disappoint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kokoon Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 Oh and people that have seen it and say it looks like tv/video - that's because it IS a lot like tv/video. Tv footage is captured and played back ~60 (50 here) times per second. It's also interlaced but that's not as obvious to our eyes as the higher framerate is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 Remember when IDM had snare rushes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Blanket Fort Collapse Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 Peter Jackson on Hobbit Criticisms Director says audiences will (need to) get used to 48fps. http://movies.ign.com/articles/122/1223967p1.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaarg Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 I like his attitude at least. Not trying to be all cute and pleasing. It actually makes me want this 48 experience a bit more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soloman Tump Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey opens this December 14, including 3D, 2D and IMAX 3D and in both 24fps and 48fps. So there will be 6 options when watching this movie! I wonder how much they will want to sting us for an IMAX-3D-48fps ticket? Ouch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCM Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 £20? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.