10 ms·

It's funny, watching films in 48fps in theatres (specifically the first Hobbit movie that pioneered the concept) to me looks like the actors acted in 2x slow mo

by jiayo 3y ago

It's funny, watching films in 48fps in theatres (specifically the first Hobbit movie that pioneered the concept) to me looks like the actors acted in 2x slow motion and then someone pressed fast forward. Everything looks incredibly unnatural.

dontlaugh 3y ago
There was weird motion blur, but to me it looked far more normal than most films. I realise it’s a minority opinion.
sp332 3y ago
Peter Jackson added more motion blur in those because he said that it played better with a focus group. I think sticking to a normal 180-degree shutter angle would not feel so weird.
cassianoleal 3y ago
I had a different experience. At first, I found things unnatural like you did. After a few minutes, I figured out that it was actually the opposite - it had a bit of a theatrical thing going on, i.e. live action vs. recorded and played back. At that point I figured out that it was just because I've been so used to crappy frame rates that the more natural movements feel out of place. I wonder what the first pass, with less motion blur, would have felt like. Maybe better, maybe worse. I kind of feel it would make it worse, in the same way that the transitional from analog to high definition digital made it look worse to me since I could notice the transitions between frames. That is, at least at first. I'm used to it now.
- whynotminot 3y ago
  I firmly believe most people complaining about the Hobbit in 48 FPS just don’t like change. It’s not worse. In fact it’s so vastly better. Watching a 3 hour movie in 3D without getting a headache from 24 FPS judder (“magic”) was a revelation. But different bad.
  - kalleboo 3y ago
    I was really looking forward to 48 fps - the juddering in wide panning shots on 24 fps always takes me out of the immersion so I was hoping the cinema world could move forward. There was just something very wrong with it. It kept feeling like suddenly parts of the movie were sped up and going at 2x speed. To the point where I wonder if the cinematographer was just not experienced with the technology to make it work right (like, maybe there are collaries to the 180 rule that need to be experimented with) I watched it in 2D, I'm sure for 3D it makes a whole different experience.
    - wharvle 3y ago
      Also saw the first film in 2d in the theater at 48fps, also very excited going in, also felt like everything looked sped-up. What it reminded me of was silent era film that’s been slightly sped up on purpose for comic effect. All the walking looked kinda jerky, like it does when you speed up footage of someone walking, for instance. Or very early manual-timing film that was cranked a bit inconsistently. It was so distracting I could hardly focus in anything else the entire movie. If it’d been a better film, I’d say that gimmick ruined it, but… well.
      - kalleboo 3y ago
        Yeah it was very strange. Like, you don't get that effect from 60fps TV or video shot on your smartphone, so I wonder what went wrong to cause it.
        wharvle 3y ago
        Yeah, I’d seen higher-frame rate video before, and since (though maybe not again in a movie theater?) but that’s the only time I’ve noticed that particular problem. I spent a little time searching around after I saw it, trying to figure out what happened, but the chatter over 48fps in general drowned out any signal about what might have caused that specific issue (though many others did report experiencing a similar sped-up effect, at the time—never found an explanation, though, aside from just blaming the high frame rate, but I suspect there’s more to it)
ender341341 3y ago
I think people blamed the frame rate, but for me it was the rest of the effects that put me off, faces were too softened, lots of scenes had weird color saturation, as others mentioned there was a lot of motion blur, compared to LOTR the VFX really pulled me out of lots of scenes.
- thaumasiotes 3y ago
  I did not notice anything that I would attribute to the frame rate. Frankly I think the visuals of the movie were fine. It was the writing that was the problem.

by jiayo 3y ago

dontlaugh 3y ago

There was weird motion blur, but to me it looked far more normal than most films. I realise it’s a minority opinion.

sp332 3y ago

Peter Jackson added more motion blur in those because he said that it played better with a focus group. I think sticking to a normal 180-degree shutter angle would not feel so weird.

cassianoleal 3y ago

I had a different experience. At first, I found things unnatural like you did. After a few minutes, I figured out that it was actually the opposite - it had a bit of a theatrical thing going on, i.e. live action vs. recorded and played back. At that point I figured out that it was just because I've been so used to crappy frame rates that the more natural movements feel out of place. I wonder what the first pass, with less motion blur, would have felt like. Maybe better, maybe worse. I kind of feel it would make it worse, in the same way that the transitional from analog to high definition digital made it look worse to me since I could notice the transitions between frames. That is, at least at first. I'm used to it now.

whynotminot 3y ago
I firmly believe most people complaining about the Hobbit in 48 FPS just don’t like change. It’s not worse. In fact it’s so vastly better. Watching a 3 hour movie in 3D without getting a headache from 24 FPS judder (“magic”) was a revelation. But different bad.
- kalleboo 3y ago
  I was really looking forward to 48 fps - the juddering in wide panning shots on 24 fps always takes me out of the immersion so I was hoping the cinema world could move forward. There was just something very wrong with it. It kept feeling like suddenly parts of the movie were sped up and going at 2x speed. To the point where I wonder if the cinematographer was just not experienced with the technology to make it work right (like, maybe there are collaries to the 180 rule that need to be experimented with) I watched it in 2D, I'm sure for 3D it makes a whole different experience.
  - wharvle 3y ago
    Also saw the first film in 2d in the theater at 48fps, also very excited going in, also felt like everything looked sped-up. What it reminded me of was silent era film that’s been slightly sped up on purpose for comic effect. All the walking looked kinda jerky, like it does when you speed up footage of someone walking, for instance. Or very early manual-timing film that was cranked a bit inconsistently. It was so distracting I could hardly focus in anything else the entire movie. If it’d been a better film, I’d say that gimmick ruined it, but… well.
    - kalleboo 3y ago
      Yeah it was very strange. Like, you don't get that effect from 60fps TV or video shot on your smartphone, so I wonder what went wrong to cause it.
      - wharvle 3y ago
        Yeah, I’d seen higher-frame rate video before, and since (though maybe not again in a movie theater?) but that’s the only time I’ve noticed that particular problem. I spent a little time searching around after I saw it, trying to figure out what happened, but the chatter over 48fps in general drowned out any signal about what might have caused that specific issue (though many others did report experiencing a similar sped-up effect, at the time—never found an explanation, though, aside from just blaming the high frame rate, but I suspect there’s more to it)

ender341341 3y ago

I think people blamed the frame rate, but for me it was the rest of the effects that put me off, faces were too softened, lots of scenes had weird color saturation, as others mentioned there was a lot of motion blur, compared to LOTR the VFX really pulled me out of lots of scenes.

thaumasiotes 3y ago
I did not notice anything that I would attribute to the frame rate. Frankly I think the visuals of the movie were fine. It was the writing that was the problem.