48fps looks like shit I almost vomit watching that clip, oh my god it looks like live tv and speed up.

24fps makes it look like a dream and is one of the reasons it works on film.

There are 3 problems with 48fps

- Lighting has to be re-invented for 48fps as all the current lighting techniques are fine tuned to properly light a scene at 24 frames of exposure.
- Details are more visible, less of the action is hidden in motion blur and flaws are more easily spotted.
- And the uncanny valley effect of 48 fps. This is the best article on the subject imo http://the-artifice.com/the-hobbit-at-48-fps-scaling-the-uncanny-valley/

Although studies have proven that our minds recognize 66 frames per second, it is actually more accurate to claim that we recognize 40 moments per second. Therefore, when we watch a standard, 24 fps-projected film, it is easy for us to accept that what we are watching is, indeed, a film, not a replication of reality. We therefore perceive what we are watching within its own platform of onscreen reality; we recognize that it is “fake,” and because we do, it is easier for us to consciously “believe” it.

The high framerate is not the onkly thing to blame btw:

However, the failures of the The Hobbit‘s visual components are less entwined with the high frame rate than Jackson’s overall “look” for the film, which occasionally steers itself into video game territory. 48 fps, in effect, enhances specific aspects of the movie and discredits others. It takes a moment to get used to; immediately, you get the sense that you are watching a fantasy program on either PBS or BBC on your HD television at home, or as some critics have put it – watching a documentary about the making of The Hobbit.


48fps will get better with practice. Early CGI looked extremely fake too and 1080p versions of old movies reveal all the old shortcuts.
Early 4K movies also have problems that will be solved. One of them is that the cgi is still rendered at 2K and upscaled, mixed for highly detailed actors.

it's the FPS that matters here, not pixels/resolution compression. Anyways the MP4 is over saturated like Normando has said

48 is obviously superior. I'll fully admit that. It's quite simply a technical advancement. But I still absolutely hate it because it's not what I'm used to. I've been trained to think movies are supposed to look a certain way, so the smoothness just looks like garbage to me. Everyone has their own preferences; some people think it barely looks different, whereas I can't even get into the movie because I feel like I'm watching some crappy TV show.

It's just personal preferences, dawg. If anyone says it's simply "worse" they're being ignorant, because it's obviously not. It's just not what we're used to.

48fps trailers looks like a videogame. 24fps really is much more comfortable.

This may be a stupid question, but why not film in 30fps?

Great movies now are about fps and graphics.

Can't people just enjoy movies or a game and not try to argue what's superior in graphics, cg, fps, ect.

It's no native 48fps-file, it's 48 Hz converted to 60 Hz... the same pull-down-sh*t NTSC DVDs had all the years.

Blu-rays switched from 3:2-Pull-Down 60hz to native 24 Hz for a reason, so compatible displays and projectors can show the material with a multiple frequency (96 Hz, 120 Hz, 144 Hz...) with no uneven conversions.

So a real 48fps-file of that trailer will be smoother on a compatible display.

The 48ps version of the trailer in the OP doesn't work on my laptop, it's chugging in more like 4 fps.

That's really weird. I've noticed the stutter of 24fps for quite some time and it can be very annoying when it takes me out of the movie. I have been wanting them to upgrade the frames for a whiles (why they stop at 48fps is beyond me). However, what people are saying is a valid concern. While watching the 48fps version it DID seem like the trailer was on 'fast forward' at times. And I know it wasn't. I watched both versions back and forth quite a few times (my computer sadly can't handle running both at the same time, apparently) and they did run at the same speed. It's just the perception. However, I can see this perception being very jarring and distracting. It may be technically superior (and I really hope they upgrade the frames for all movies) but people hate change and it will be an upward battle.

Reminds me of when I saw my first HD TV with Bluray playing spiderman 3. It looked too real.

Takes a while to get used to, but I'd never go back!