The Hobbit - great movie. But at 48fps? Um....

[GmanJoe]

...no thanks. Too clean. Too "soap opera" like. Without the motion blur, it looked like a pixar animation. Albeit beautiful.....

How about a compromise at 40fps? Our brains process motion at about this rate.

[Living-In-Clip]

I am more confused as to how you got that The Hobbit is a "great movie". I loved LoTR and enjoy The Hobbit novel, but I found this movie to be a hobbled mess of a film. I doubt I bother to watch the other two, that\'s for sure.

[Paul2]

...no thanks. Too clean. Too "soap opera" like. Without the motion blur, it looked like a pixar animation. Albeit beautiful.....

How about a compromise at 40fps? Our brains process motion at about this rate.

i prefer higher than 24 fps.  24 fps is barely a good motion for our eyes.  so anything higher than 24 fps is a plus.

even european and other pal territories are actually 25 fps, or 50 "interlaced fields" back then.  now, most pal and european tvs are progressive like 50 frames or 50 hertz progressive nowadays.

i wouldn\'t be surprise with just an increase of 1 extra frame, from 24 fps, to 25 fps.  we should see smoother, more acceptable motion, and pleasing too.

while ntsc, and atsc like americans tv are better than european and other pal territories because our tvs and video cameras run at 30 fps or 60 fields per second.  or 60 Hz.  Now all, if not all, then most American and other atsc territories TVs run at 60 Hz progressively.  even some Americans hd camcorders run at 60 frames per second progressively too.  and some even include 30 fps progressively too.

so i would say that 24 fps is barely pleasing motion, while 25 fps is pleasing, and 30 fps (its actually 29.97 fps) is very pleasing.  and anything higher than 30 fps, like 48 fps, is even more pleasing.  and 60 fps is super smooth and super pleasing to our eyes...

[GmanJoe]

i prefer higher than 24 fps.  24 fps is barely a good motion for our eyes.  so anything higher than 24 fps is a plus.

even european and other pal territories are actually 25 fps, or 50 "interlaced fields" back then.  now, most pal and european tvs are progressive like 50 frames or 50 hertz progressive nowadays.

i wouldn\'t be surprise with just an increase of 1 extra frame, from 24 fps, to 25 fps.  we should see smoother, more acceptable motion, and pleasing too.

while ntsc, and atsc like americans tv are better than european and other pal territories because our tvs and video cameras run at 30 fps or 60 fields per second.  or 60 Hz.  Now all, if not all, then most American and other atsc territories TVs run at 60 Hz progressively.  even some Americans hd camcorders run at 60 frames per second progressively too.  and some even include 30 fps progressively too.

so i would say that 24 fps is barely pleasing motion, while 25 fps is pleasing, and 30 fps (its actually 29.97 fps) is very pleasing.  and anything higher than 30 fps, like 48 fps, is even more pleasing.  and 60 fps is super smooth and super pleasing to our eyes...

Have you seen The Hobbit at 48fps yet?

[Paul2]

nope, and i don\'t plan to anytime soon.

[Titan]

i prefer higher than 24 fps.  24 fps is barely a good motion for our eyes.  so anything higher than 24 fps is a plus.

even european and other pal territories are actually 25 fps, or 50 "interlaced fields" back then.  now, most pal and european tvs are progressive like 50 frames or 50 hertz progressive nowadays.

i wouldn\'t be surprise with just an increase of 1 extra frame, from 24 fps, to 25 fps.  we should see smoother, more acceptable motion, and pleasing too.

while ntsc, and atsc like americans tv are better than european and other pal territories because our tvs and video cameras run at 30 fps or 60 fields per second.  or 60 Hz.  Now all, if not all, then most American and other atsc territories TVs run at 60 Hz progressively.  even some Americans hd camcorders run at 60 frames per second progressively too.  and some even include 30 fps progressively too.

so i would say that 24 fps is barely pleasing motion, while 25 fps is pleasing, and 30 fps (its actually 29.97 fps) is very pleasing.  and anything higher than 30 fps, like 48 fps, is even more pleasing.  and 60 fps is super smooth and super pleasing to our eyes...

Your talking about two completely different things. Movies and TV use completely different frame rates. Motion pictures have always been a standard of 24 frames per second. Probably saved on film stock back then that\'s my assumption. TV has always been 30 fps but I think they mostly use 60 now a days. Vid can clear that one up

[Paul2]

i believe the topic starter is talking about frame rate.  so, i just clarify about the film\'s framerate (aka movie\'s frame rate) compare to tv\'s frame rate like ntsc/atsc framerate, and refresh rate and pal\'s frame rate.

i am just bored you know.

i remember over 10 years ago, maybe 12 or 13 years ago, when i have internet at home for sometimes.  i got bored, got so nerdy, that i look up about those somewhat technical stuffs about picture/video, and film/movie too on the internet.  and yeah, it seems like back in the day, that\'s what i read too.  they probably wanted to cut cost, so they uses 24fps instead of higher/faster framerate.  i don\'t know when film been in theater, maybe in the 1930? 40s? 50?  who knows, maybe from 60 to 80 years ago or longer.  they still film at 24 fps.

in 2008, i remember chatting with some guy, and he said that back then, people test at what frame rate that is the lowest they can get away with that most people won\'t be able to tell there is judder on motion and stuff, and 24 fps is the lowest frame rate where they almost couldn\'t tell and that\'s the lowest frame rate they use for film.  Again, to cut cost that\'s why they use the lowest 24 fps.

i guess 35 mm film back then are like very, very expensive or something.  and 24 fps is only 1 second of motion.  imagine filming and editing movies/films that are like 1 hour long or longer like 2 to 3 hours long.  say there are 24 frames per second, 60 seconds per minute, and 60 minutes per hour...

Then imagine, developing those negatives and distributed to like hundred of theaters back then?  now, there are like what around 3,000 to 4,000 theaters in america and in america only.  and maybe each theaters get like 2 or 3 copies of that film\'s negatives?  i dunno.  imagine nowadays, those films get distributed around the world too.  i can see why it\'s expensive.

no wonder why they didn\'t bother with like going with just 1 extra frame higher than 24 fps, like 25 fps.  because the cost will be more expensive for movies that are around 1 to 3 hours long.  so, they just stick with 24 fps even to this day.

[GmanJoe]

I am more confused as to how you got that The Hobbit is a "great movie". I loved LoTR and enjoy The Hobbit novel, but I found this movie to be a hobbled mess of a film. I doubt I bother to watch the other two, that\'s for sure.

I don\'t get you, since the movie is pretty much step for step as what is in the book. It translates well into film. Jackson did add a subplot into the movie which added more suspense to their journey.

[Living-In-Clip]

I don\'t get you, since the movie is pretty much step for step as what is in the book. It translates well into film. Jackson did add a subplot into the movie which added more suspense to their journey.

See, that\'s the thing, I didn\'t feel it did translate that well. The bunny sleigh was terrible and I could of done without Azog. Not to mention, there wasn\'t enough development of the dwarves and so they just felt like set pieces that I never cared about.

I am not looking forward to the other two, but am hopeful.

[GmanJoe]

See, that\'s the thing, I didn\'t feel it did translate that well. The bunny sleigh was terrible and I could of done without Azog. Not to mention, there wasn\'t enough development of the dwarves and so they just felt like set pieces that I never cared about.

I am not looking forward to the other two, but am hopeful.

Um....yeah, in the book at this stage of the movie, they just got through their first ordeal. And Thorin\'s opinion of Bilbo was changed when Bilbo confessed his reason for wanting the dwarves to have a home, the adventure was now  secondary. That and his innate bravery to save Thorin at the risk of his own life.

[Living-In-Clip]

Um....yeah, in the book at this stage of the movie, they just got through their first ordeal. And Thorin\'s opinion of Bilbo was changed when Bilbo confessed his reason for wanting the dwarves to have a home, the adventure was now  secondary. That and his innate bravery to save Thorin at the risk of his own life.

What did that have to do with any of my complaints? My complaint is beyond Thorin, the other dwarves were completely wasted and the whole Azog thing could of been left out. Not to mention, there was no reason at all for The Hobbit to be split into a trilogy and it shows. Its long for the sake of being long.

The entire story of The Hobbit is fundamentally less compelling than the Lord of the Rings.  The motivation of the characters in LOTR = save the world (or Middle Earth to be precise).  The motivation of the characters in The Hobbit = recover the dwarves\' gold.  It sounds like a good D&D adventure, not an epic motion picture.  Even if it was D&D, I don\'t think I\'d risk my character\'s life for a bunch of greedy dwarves.

Despite all that, I like the movie, and I thought the 48 fps presentation worked well.  It\'s an improvement, you just have to get used to it.

[GmanJoe]

What did that have to do with any of my complaints? My complaint is beyond Thorin, the other dwarves were completely wasted and the whole Azog thing could of been left out. Not to mention, there was no reason at all for The Hobbit to be split into a trilogy and it shows. Its long for the sake of being long.

Is it you or mm that hates good movies?

[Evi]

Loved the movie... haven\'t seen it in 48 FPS yet... not sure if I want to. I enjoyed it, though.

[Viper_Fujax]

how are you supposed to know if it was 48fps?

I saw it in 3d and was the first time i saw a 3d movie (we went to the wrong theater and it was either wait 2 hours or see it in 3d). I was pretty unimpressed. It looked like a made-for-tv movie at the beginning until I got used to it..even then it just looked off. Now I\'m curious if it was because of the 3d or the fps because \'soap opera\' is a good description of what i thought of it

but I enjoyed the movie itself. I\'d put it as my 2nd favorite in the 4 movies, behind the second LOTR. I kept falling asleep during the 3rd one, and the first one was too much walking