Peter Jackson unsurprised by critics of Hobbit footage

[giantpotato]

This is what I would of thoughts, however movies don't seem to lag even at 24FPS. What's the difference between a game running at 60fps and a movie at 60fps? Most games where the fps gets down to 24 or less it can seem very jittery, the higher FPS (before tearing occurs) the better. Why isn't it like that for a movie?

My guess is motion blur. With movies you almost always have blurring during fast action so your eyes don't distinguish individual frames. With video games each frame is distinct from the next, with very little blur. For example Gladiator and Saving Private Ryan had scenes with a high shutter rate, so each image was very detailed with little blur, and the result was jerky motion.

[HawkMan]

Are people really complaining that a movie will have higher FPS rate than usual, horribly bad, 24?

Thats is like complaining that your FPS game is running at 60 FPS instead of 30.

No it's not, it's not th same thing at all.

[Anthony Tosie Veteran]

Well the trailer footage and the final footage should be the same for fps. It doesn't make sense to have different fps for the trailer itself. If it is filmed at 48fps, everything is at 48fps.

The trailer was released at 24 fps, according to Jackson himself.

[HawkMan]

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere the trailers will all be 24fps, with half the frames missing. Just because it's filmed at 48fps, doesn't mean it will be displayed at that frame rate. I even read some theaters are planning to play the film at 24fps just to avoid complaints. Other theaters are probably incapable of displaying 48fps.

As I said before, just cutting every second frame will make the movie look horribly jerky, like an old cartoon.

[firey]

My guess is motion blur. With movies you almost always have blurring during fast action so your eyes don't distinguish individual frames. With video games each frame is distinct from the next, with very little blur. For example Gladiator and Saving Private Ryan had scenes with a high shutter rate, so each image was very detailed with little blur, and the result was jerky motion.

I get it, so because movies aren't as high fps to make it look 100% fluid, they use a lower fps with more blur and cover-up to make it harder for us to see that it's choppy. However with higher fps it's harder to mask? But until films are shot in solid 60fps+ it will be an issue. Because at 60fps+ it will seem fluid regardless of the action.

[AngelGraves13]

48fps looks more realistic with little to no blurring, so people say it doesn't look like film, which is full of blurring.

48hz is the future...people need to move on.

[Owen W Veteran]

I think it's a good move. The 'purists' might be mad, but the average joe will think it's weird for the first 10 minutes and then be engrossed in the movie. This is no big deal.

[Vice]

Bring back the 15 FPS silent movies of 1910! - That's where the quality was. Back then you could get a coke, a popcorn, three movies and a boxing match for a nickle!

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

Will it have the soap opera effect? I've seen Casino Royale on a 240 Hz TV once and it looked horrible. The movie lost its cinematic look and looked almost exactly like a soap opera. I thought the movement looked a little too fluid too. I guess it wouldn't look so bad if I got used to it. I'd hate to get used to it though because it'd ruin 99% of the movies out there right now. Actually, I don't even know if the effect would be noticeable on a large theatre screen.

[Buio]

Will it have the soap opera effect? I've seen Casino Royale on a 240 Hz TV once and it looked horrible. The movie lost its cinematic look and looked almost exactly like a soap opera.

Need to get over the 24 fps = "cinematic look", 48/60 fps = "soap opera thing". High fps is good, even in movies. Motion blur does not cover the low frame rate even if it helps a bit. Being used to low frame rate, and therefore frown upon improvement is not a good thing in my opinion.

And a 240Hz TV isn't the same as a high fps original movie, using interpolation is bad.

[Mathachew Veteran]

Need to get over the 24 fps = "cinematic look", 48/60 fps = "soap opera thing". High fps is good, even in movies. Motion blur does not cover the low frame rate even if it helps a bit. Being used to low frame rate, and therefore frown upon improvement is not a good thing in my opinion.

And a 240Hz TV isn't the same as a high fps original movie, using interpolation is bad.

Telling us to get over our preferred 24fps is down right rude. Obviously people enjoy the cinematic feel because it adds to the experience. Anything I watch at high rates always feels cheap and less engaging for my preferences in enjoying a movie. How about you get over higher frame rates? No? Then I won't get over my preferred and more enjoyable 24fps. I can see how it benefits 3D, but I care very little for that, if at all. We don't see this as an improvement but instead a step back to, yes, soap operas.

[ArialBlue]

This is what I would of thoughts, however movies don't seem to lag even at 24FPS. What's the difference between a game running at 60fps and a movie at 60fps? Most games where the fps gets down to 24 or less it can seem very jittery, the higher FPS (before tearing occurs) the better. Why isn't it like that for a movie?

Natural motion blur. A frame of a movie is motion blurred by default thus looking more natural. Natural motion blur in games is running a game without motion blur at extremely high FPS rates. Modern games have fake motion blur to make it feel faster.

If a movie is shot at a higher FPS rate, well it will still have natural motion blur. Panning and generally fast scenes will look better.

24 FPS is not smooth, we just don't notice the jerkiness that much.

Now why 48 instead of 60 / 120?