The Hobbit 24fps vs 48fps Video Comparison /Massive Rant

[JoeTheBro]

Rafux said:

JoeTheBro said:

No, it's not completely different. Both are increases in the visual fidelity of the image. 24fps is not an artistic choice, it's just the standard that almost all films are forced to be shot in. Heck even James Cameron was forced to shoot Avatar in 24fps even though he really fought for 48fps and deeply believes in its importance. http://variety.com/2008/digital/news/james-cameron-supercharges-3-d-1117983864/

(it's a very bad joke, I know)

I know its the standard but there's never been a need to change that standard (there are systems using 30 to 60fps in common usage today)  except that Jackson wanted to do 48fps to resolve the light loss in 3D. Cameron also want higher frame rate to help produce clearer 3D.

Showscan which films at 60 fps has been around for decades yet nobody uses it and never became the standard for the same problems Jackson's technology face: Is too real, is sped up, it looks like behind the scenes, it looks like a soap opera.

I know the standard in cinemas is not 48 fps but they could easily adjust like they did for the 3D fad that Avatar brought but again there is not need for that since filmakers are just fine with 24fps.

I totally understand what you mean when saying it looks fake. I remember my first time experiencing BluRay at a Best Buy and I felt the same way. It looked too good. Then my Aunt and Uncle bought an HD TV and I got more than just a few minutes experiencing it. My brain adapted and now just like everyone else I look at super clean HD videos and think they look awesome!

The uncanny issues people have with 48fps and used to have with HD are all psychological. I'm betting if you/any non believer could spend a few days only watching movies in 48fps, you'd lose that feeling of fakeness.