Kaizar said:
kekrot said:
walsufnir said:
kekrot said:
I appreciated the 3D effect combined with 48 fps in the Hobbit 1 on blu-ray. When I went to see the second in theaters last week or so, it was only 24 fps though... my local theater doesn't have all that fancy equipment, only 3D. So I got quickly tired while watching, luckily the film kept me awake with no problems ;)
So 48 fps + 3D is a really good combination, especially when you have to watch for three hours. Much less stressful on the eyes, and more comfortable. |
What? 48 fps on bluray?
|
Oh sorry, turns out I was wrong... I googled it now and couldn't find anything about a 48 fps blu-ray. My friend has a modern TV with that ugly soap opera effect, which I guess didn't look as ugly in 3D :P
I guess it was only the TV effect, even if I really thought the hobbit movies were 48 on BD. Since they are filmed in 48 fps I didn't have a huge problem with the soap opera effect... but otherwise I turn it off.
I think some scenes slowed down a little, and that too is proof of the effect being the work of the tv. :(
|
Well 3D Blu-Rays have a disc speed of 22.5 MB a second, and HDMI 1.4 is definitely capable of doing 2 different 1080p 60 fps images at once. So they should eventually release High-Frame Rate 3D Blu-Rays of 3D Movies as far back as the 1930's eventually. (there's a lot from the 1950's in 60 fps per image)
Anyways the Hobbit 2 3D seem like 3 of its action scenes would have been better in 60 fps per image instead of its 48 fps. Oh welp.
|
Heh fps per image? That's like saying image per second per image :P Or maybe you mean per eye.
JK, but how much bitrate could 3D movies in 60 fps possibly hold? I think 48 fps is the perfect thing for theatre features like Hobbit, because when theaters with only-24fps equipment shows the film, every other image is removed from the film, opposed to downscaling from 60 fps to 24. That wouldn't work too well.
