I believe in 48 FPS
- Thread starter sfoster
- Start date
I dunno man, 48 looks a bit plasticey, dontcha think?
That being said, I'm not a huge action movie person, so I can't speak to how it'd work with those.
That being said, I'm not a huge action movie person, so I can't speak to how it'd work with those.
Action with really quick fighting movements is where I noticed the biggest improvement for 48 FPS. I thought it was great.
IDK how much it costs, but if all blockbusters started using it that would certainly drive the price down and eventually it would become a standard.
I'm not sure how economies of scale drive down the cost of movies. If anything, the cost of movies have been driven up, particularly for the movies that can warrant shooting in 48fps.
48fps = twice the number of frames = more work = more storage costs = more processing needed and so on.
So I ask again, is the benefit really worth it? Is it really going to drive more people to the cinema?
48fps = twice the number of frames = more work = more storage costs = more processing needed and so on.
So I ask again, is the benefit really worth it? Is it really going to drive more people to the cinema?
Looks like 48fps is dead as far as movies are concerned, sports sure but movies... not really, audiences didn't grab on and as @sweetie mentioned it costs more so unless you can charge (and people are willing to pay for) a premium you are actually losing money.
Everyone is going towards 4K-8K because they can market "ultra high definition" and get people to pay more - IMax is a great example of this.
I could be wrong but everyone is asking me for 4K movies (or at least mastered in 4K), no one is asking for 48fps (they actyally want 24.00fps these days for DCPs). My biggest issue is with True 4K vs. UHD - one of those little format annoyances.
Everyone is going towards 4K-8K because they can market "ultra high definition" and get people to pay more - IMax is a great example of this.
I could be wrong but everyone is asking me for 4K movies (or at least mastered in 4K), no one is asking for 48fps (they actyally want 24.00fps these days for DCPs). My biggest issue is with True 4K vs. UHD - one of those little format annoyances.
I don't understand the hate for 48FPS.
They only time I really noticed it was during the fight scenes.
Some people say oh it's too much storage.
Other people say we will be doing 8k soon.
I don't think it's necessary for most films.
But something like The Raid 2. How amazing would that be to have those fight scenes in 48FPS.
They only time I really noticed it was during the fight scenes.
Some people say oh it's too much storage.
Other people say we will be doing 8k soon.
I don't think it's necessary for most films.
But something like The Raid 2. How amazing would that be to have those fight scenes in 48FPS.
I've only seen one movie in 48fps. The first Hobbit.
I personally don't think it was really that special. Either the scenes were great or not. 48fps isn't going to fix a poor scene, neither is 4k (or 8k for that matter). This is the reason I don't see much in the way of benefit (and asking if there are any benefits that I don't see).
It's like the ATMOS DOLBY sound. While I see the benefit of ATMOS DOLBY in sound, in most applications, I don't think that benefit outweighs the added costs and complexity. It'd probably work well in a film that has air/space battles.
I personally don't think it was really that special. Either the scenes were great or not. 48fps isn't going to fix a poor scene, neither is 4k (or 8k for that matter). This is the reason I don't see much in the way of benefit (and asking if there are any benefits that I don't see).
It's like the ATMOS DOLBY sound. While I see the benefit of ATMOS DOLBY in sound, in most applications, I don't think that benefit outweighs the added costs and complexity. It'd probably work well in a film that has air/space battles.
I went to the third hobbit. I haven't been to the theater since The Avengers.
It was also the first time I've ever appreciated 3d.
I suppose overall it's not a benefit, like I said I think it only makes a real difference in action scenes. Maybe with 48FPS they wouldn't have to slow down bruce lee so people can see what he's doing.
It was also the first time I've ever appreciated 3d.
I suppose overall it's not a benefit, like I said I think it only makes a real difference in action scenes. Maybe with 48FPS they wouldn't have to slow down bruce lee so people can see what he's doing.
I think I might be with you on that, sfoster. It's not even just action. I mean, I'm not sure I even noticed that. It's when you see The Hobbit in 48fps then see it in 24 (well, maybe on the the big screen, at least). What then bothered me about 24fps was the blur during panning. It's almost like becoming severely nearsighted for the duration of fast camera moves, like rapid pans. At least, that was what I thought I perceived/experienced.
(On the other hand, many months later, when I saw it again on Blu-ray, I don't think it bothered me.)
...and I was like, okay, wait a minute...maybe there is something to this HFR thing. And maybe there isn't something inherently right or superior about 24fps. Maybe it really is just that we've been conditioned to prefer 24. Not saying that for sure. Just saying that it made me more willing to consider the possibility, while before I was pretty adamant about 24fps being the right frame rate.
Yeah, if it's so much more trouble and expensive, then maybe it won't catch on. But, speaking of going 4k to 8k, if the trouble and expense of going there isn't a deal breaker, then maybe it ultimately won't be one for 48fps, either.
...except that people complained about The Hobbit being video-y. Maybe if people simply won't embrace that video-y look, even if that "video-y" look is more realistic, then maybe that will be the deal breaker.
(On the other hand, many months later, when I saw it again on Blu-ray, I don't think it bothered me.)
...and I was like, okay, wait a minute...maybe there is something to this HFR thing. And maybe there isn't something inherently right or superior about 24fps. Maybe it really is just that we've been conditioned to prefer 24. Not saying that for sure. Just saying that it made me more willing to consider the possibility, while before I was pretty adamant about 24fps being the right frame rate.
Yeah, if it's so much more trouble and expensive, then maybe it won't catch on. But, speaking of going 4k to 8k, if the trouble and expense of going there isn't a deal breaker, then maybe it ultimately won't be one for 48fps, either.
...except that people complained about The Hobbit being video-y. Maybe if people simply won't embrace that video-y look, even if that "video-y" look is more realistic, then maybe that will be the deal breaker.
Last edited:
I didn't notice anything negative at all, nor did I notice a video-y look. I was simply able to see more of what was going on in fight scenes.
Maybe it's because I haven't been to a movie theater in two years. I've probably watched 800 films in 2d 24fps since the last time I was in a movie theater.
The 3d was fascinating, i remember looking around and focusing on a bush and how pretty it looked. Then thinking about how deep focus was so pivotal for 3d to work. I never look around a world in awe, it was very interesting.
If I had the money to waste I would go back and watch the first 20 minutes a second time
Maybe it's because I haven't been to a movie theater in two years. I've probably watched 800 films in 2d 24fps since the last time I was in a movie theater.
The 3d was fascinating, i remember looking around and focusing on a bush and how pretty it looked. Then thinking about how deep focus was so pivotal for 3d to work. I never look around a world in awe, it was very interesting.
If I had the money to waste I would go back and watch the first 20 minutes a second time
Because if people want to watch something that looks like the 5:00 news, they can stay home and watch the 5:00 news. Or turn the 'motion smoothing' BS on on their TV and watch a DVD at home.
People go to the movies to see a MOVIE, the less than perfect motion of the image is a part of that experience. Yes, yes.. I know it initially was due to the least number of frames/second to achieve believable motion and handle sync sound -- prior to that the standard frame speed was 18fps. But 24fps has been the standard for SO LONG, that it's specific look is really a big part of the experience.
We've already lost the sound of the film ticking through the projector as everything has been replaced with digital projection, that's enough.
Nah, they'd still look bad, they totally half-assed the VFX in the entire hobbit franchise. Vast swaths of it feel like watching someone play a video game.
I never took you for a luddite.
Who cares what used to happen, lets do what looks and sounds the best!
I don't care for vinyl crackles in my music either
Arguments that one looks better than the other are absurd. 48fps is distracting because it's not what people are used to, not because it's better or worse. (Well maybe it is, but I'm unsure how one would measure that). But vinyl is better than digital in music 
The argument that 48fps isn't 'more realistic' because 'we see blurs in motion in real life' doesn't work for me. Real life, obviously, doesn't have any number of frames per second. That blur is our eyes not being able to keep up with the motion we're viewing. So 24fps being 'more realistic' because we have more motion blur seems invalid - that blur is more than what we'd see in real life.
That said, I don't like 48fps. Because I'm not used to it.
Perhaps the aversion to 48fps is because it is a cleaner and less blurred image. Most often people see movies as a form of escapism. We don't want "real." We want something approximating real within it's own odd set of rules. A set of rules where pistols sound like shotguns.
The argument that 48fps isn't 'more realistic' because 'we see blurs in motion in real life' doesn't work for me. Real life, obviously, doesn't have any number of frames per second. That blur is our eyes not being able to keep up with the motion we're viewing. So 24fps being 'more realistic' because we have more motion blur seems invalid - that blur is more than what we'd see in real life.
That said, I don't like 48fps. Because I'm not used to it.
Perhaps the aversion to 48fps is because it is a cleaner and less blurred image. Most often people see movies as a form of escapism. We don't want "real." We want something approximating real within it's own odd set of rules. A set of rules where pistols sound like shotguns.
I don't watch a movie to experience real life. For most people that involves most of the time looking at a computer monitor or a phone. Shots that mimic a typical persons field of view (for the most part) comes across as mostly boring. It's part of the reason that crane shots look great. They're different. I'm not sure about you, but I don't travel with a crane up my butt giving me that crane POV in real life
There are some that like 48fps. There are more (from my limited experience) that don't like 48fps. For me, it really comes back to a slightly altered version of my original question.
Is the added cost worth appeasing that small segment of the market?
For those who are Pro 48fps:
Would you pay more to go and see a 48fps version of a film?
If you wanted to see a film, would you not see a film due to it not having a 48fps version?