Forums - Movies Discussion - The Hobbit 24fps vs 48fps Video Comparison /Massive Rant



24fps: (Watch in 1080p)



48fps is OBVIOUSLY superior. I honestly don't even know how/why this is a debate. 48fps doesn't make it look "too real" or gives it a "soap effect"(<---wtf??) NO. It simply makes it more smooth, less jittery and less motion blur.

The Origin of 24fps/understanding 24fps:
If movies were any lower then 24fps, then you would start to see that the sound doesn't sync up with whats happening on screen, this is the only reason why things are in 24fps today, it's literally the least they could get away with. back in the silent error of movies (Nosferatu ect ect pre 1920s stuff) things were shot in 16fps. When movies with people actually talking was introduced they noticed that the voice didn't sync up properly with the lip movement, THUS THE INTRODUCTION OF 24FPS. The least they could get away with without using up too much film. i.e being cheap. it had absolutly nothing to do with "cinematic feel"  "cinematic feel" does NOT corrilate with frames per second.


The 24fps version, is it just me or do the scenic slow moving camera shots have this strange jitter effect? it's most noticeable when the camera is moving slow with not much things happening on screen (scenic mountain shots for example) it's almost as if it's stuttering. You might need a good eye to see it, but it is noticeable if you look carefully.

At first 48fps MIGHT look "sped up" but you have to note that this is just an ILLUSION, you will get use to it overtime and it will just look natural. i say illusion because thats what it is. 48fps and 24fps versions of the film have the exact same run time. 1 second is still 1 second, they just have a different amount of frames running per second. (common sense stuff here ppl) and in all honesty the trade off is worth it.

(Random thought) Oh how i would have loved for the Bourne Supremacy to be shot in 48fps, half the damn movie is unwatchable, the shaky cam is ridiculous in that movie.


I'm sad that Warner Bros never released a 48fps version on blu-ray/home entertainment this is likely because of 3 reasons

1. The negative feedback scared them off (DAMN YOUS ALL!!!!!)

2. Standard Blu-Ray players only support 1080p up to a maximum of 30fps, the specs aren't powerful enough to run 1080p/48fps. (let me explain if you're confused) When Blu-ray players were first being created they were created with the notion of 1080p and 24fps movies, they did not think 48fps or even 3D movies would become a thing(talking about Real3D not red/blue). This is why the first adopters of Blu-ray players had to get a completely new Blu-ray player to play 3D movies, because the original design wasn't based off 3D. How ever Blu-Rays do support 1080i/60fps and 720p/60fps.

3. The movie would require multiple Blu-ray discs. Confused? people unfamiliar with Blu-ray movies need to know that Blu-ray offers the highest quality movies with uncompressed video/audio files, let me just explain this in the most simplest derp way possible The Lord of the Rings EXTENDED edition Blu-ray box set has each movie in 2 parts on 2 50gb dual layered Blu-ray discs <--- that should give you an idea of Blu-ray size/quality. Now that is in 24fps. the hobbit in 48fps would mean that the video files would use double the frames witch would mean the video files would take up x2 the amount of gigabytes of 24fps videos. (3 hours in 24fps would be the equivalent to a 6 hours in 48FPS size wise) Now they COULD compress the files, but then again ask you're self why they didn't do that with the LOTR extended box set and keep them on 1 disc? who knows.

If Warner ever bring out a 48fps version of the hobbit, i would buy it! Even if it was 3 discs, and cost 50$. Hell ill even settle with a digital version at this point. (why they haven't done a digital version in 48fps i have no idea)


Video games: I often see people saying that they dont mind 30fps for "Cinematic or RPG" games because it gives a more "cinematic experience" NO. NONONONONONONNONONONONOOOOOOOOONONO! everything i said above applys to games as well, higher frame rate is superior PERIOD. FACT. END. FIN. FULL STOP.

You may have seen me defending 30fps games (although unlikly cause im a nobody on this site) NOTE: a game is very different to a movie. i only defend 30fps games because the lower the frame rate, the more effects/particles/overall better graphics/higher resolution a game can have and quite frankly i would prefer those things over a higher framerate, as long as the game has a stable 30fps frame rate i really dont mind it. (24fps MOVIE has 0 benefits over a higher frame rate movie, unlike games)

Around the Network
To this day, I don't understand why people made such a big deal about the switch. It doesn't look that different, and in the times it does, it doesn't make it look bad anyway.

Besides, the FPS will not affect the quality of the action, acting, or anything else. People need to find something else to complain about. Maybe that The Hobbit:DOS is still not out... and I want it now.

Carl is a Piplup hater and deserves to be punished eternally.

I prefer my action movies in 24fps so i don't know what the hell is going on during the action sequences :^)

24fps is better for me, much more Fantasy-Feeling. 48fps is for me just like a TV Series in the afternoon.

You Tube vs mp4? Of course the 24fps will look bad.

24fps for movies all the way here.

Around the Network
im not sure whats going on.. can i even see it at 48fps on my laptop? its just seems like the trailer is going really fast

I think peoples complaints originate more from the odd feeling watching films in 48fps gives. It obviously looks superior, but it's that "something feels different" effect that puts people off it. Once it becomes more widely used and everyone has the chance to get used to it, then people will accept it.

48 FPS makes CGI flaws stand out a lot more. I don't see it as being an improvement.

the 48 fps does look smoother. But is it me or does it make everything look CGI? Maybe it's just that the 48 fps video was over saturated?

Boutros said:
48 FPS makes CGI flaws stand out a lot more. I don't see it as being an improvement.

Yeah I think that's it. It makes it more obvious which is live action and which is CGI. Smoother yes, better...idk.