Subby needs to look up definition for sequel

At 0:10, the kids throwing the ball.

50fps is more jarring, more stop-motion-y

WANT

I don't see a huge difference that would sway my opinion one way or the other. Seeing it with special effects added in might change that, time will tell.

They'll get over it.

To me, the matter of contention is that an audience actually WANTS a layer of separation between them and the world they are viewing in their entertainment...

When it begins to look too much like how your eye sees real events, it becomes distracting, and becomes harder to suspend your disbelief..... No matter how intricate the forest set was constructed, it will appear like a set. No matter how well costumed Gandalf is dressed, he will look like Ian McKellen in a big silly wizard suit..

Anyone who has ever watched the B-roll set footage on a DVD, knows what i mean... When you see something for what it really is, it looks faker.

Is he eating a BA-NA-NA?

rocinante721: At 0:10, the kids throwing the ball.

50fps is more jarring, more stop-motion-y

Yep, imo anything below 20 breaks the illusion, anything above 40 looks unreal

Not sure who benefits from more fps when showing live action other than effects artists and dogs

Only 50fps? Here is a quarter, go buy yourself a better GPU.

ehhhh.....

gonna have to see how it looks with the digital effects integrated in.

otherwise kinda looks like old-timey BBC stuff.

I am really not a hi-def snob, but that looks like a big difference to me. Even when I was a kid I was annoyed at the smear/stutter of an object as it moves across the screen quickly. I likey.

Mr.Tangent: I don't see a huge difference that would sway my opinion one way or the other. Seeing it with special effects added in might change that, time will tell.

To me, the 50fps was noticeably smoother, but not at all jarring. It just looked more like real life. And yeah, I think the special effects will be amazing.

T.rex: When it begins to look too much like how your eye sees real events, it becomes distracting, and becomes harder to suspend your disbelief..... No matter how intricate the forest set was constructed, it will appear like a set. No matter how well costumed Gandalf is dressed, he will look like Ian McKellen in a big silly wizard suit..

I felt this way the first time I saw Batman Begins on Blu Ray. The chase scene with the Batmobile looked too real. It felt like I was watching Cops.

You do get used to it though.

Just increasing it from 24 to 30 fps(Actually 29.97), you get the 'video' look. This is why I'm not getting my pants in a lather about 48 fps. Big deal, it's going to look to 'crisp', and as a result, will probably seem a little off, maybe even fake. It's like the whole desire to make EVERYTHING 3D, people are applying "fixes" where there aren't problems. 24 fps is perfectly fine, I see no reason to change it, and all it's going to do is use 2x the resources, whether it's film stock or digital data storage.

Besides, why completely fark up the prequel when the first movies were so great? That's what I don't understand, when they decide to go cutting edge on a pre/sequel, and it ends up looking noticeably different from the originals.

Remember all the speculation about the original Lord of the Rings movies: "How the hell can he legitimately translate this to the screen" - but he et. al did. This is one of those times when I'm inclined to trust the guy who got hired to make the film that he knows better than me. I think it'll look spectacular.

T.rex: To me, the matter of contention is that an audience actually WANTS a layer of separation between them and the world they are viewing in their entertainment...

When it begins to look too much like how your eye sees real events, it becomes distracting, and becomes harder to suspend your disbelief..... No matter how intricate the forest set was constructed, it will appear like a set. No matter how well costumed Gandalf is dressed, he will look like Ian McKellen in a big silly wizard suit..

Anyone who has ever watched the B-roll set footage on a DVD, knows what i mean... When you see something for what it really is, it looks faker.

I can't stand Blu-Ray movies... they look incredibly fake to me... I just don't know why. And for some reason, just looking at the 50 fps video demo in that article gave me a headache.

Could be something wrong with my eyes, but I feel more comfortable watching DVDs.

moothemagiccow: rocinante721: Subby needs to look up definition for sequel

Sorry, is cash-in better?

Being that the Hobbit was the first book written, the material precedes LOTR chronologically and the LOTR trilogy was the sequel... no, that's actually not better. The Hobbit swiftly became famous and successful upon its release, and because of its success the publisher requested a sequel. If anything LOTR would be the "cash-in" but considering the amazing care and depth of the backstory that went in to it, cash-in doesn't even seem warranted for the excellent LOTR series.

For the Hobbit, in the context of the movies, "prequel" would be better, but still not 100% accurate since these are obviously a labor of love for Peter Jackson. Really, you should have just written "Author shows examples of 50fps video to get everyone set for The Hobbit coming out in December " and just left it at that.


And as for the higher FPS itself... I'm glad to see it. 3D movies can be really dark, due to the method used, and in dark scenes it can be very very difficult to see what's going on. Much of the last Harry Potter movie I was struggling to make out what was going on. Since a good deal of this movie takes place underground.... anything which enhances the brightness of the scenes is probably a good thing. I also like the look of higher FPS as well. I've got a buddy with a Sony TV which plays at 60 FPS (or close to it) and I love the way it looks (he hates it).

T.rex: To me, the matter of contention is that an audience actually WANTS a layer of separation between them and the world they are viewing in their entertainment...

When it begins to look too much like how your eye sees real events, it becomes distracting, and becomes harder to suspend your disbelief..... No matter how intricate the forest set was constructed, it will appear like a set. No matter how well costumed Gandalf is dressed, he will look like Ian McKellen in a big silly wizard suit..

Anyone who has ever watched the B-roll set footage on a DVD, knows what i mean... When you see something for what it really is, it looks faker.


It's really meant to make the 3D look better, and increase the effective brightness. 3D has a brightness problem in dark scenes. Even if you don't like higher FPS video, in 3D it may look better than you're expecting. We're just going to have to wait and see.

Neat.

Took a second to adjust. It was a bit jarring at first. The crowds were more striking than the ball.

I adjusted better than I expected and liked the quality. I was expecting an effect more like what we see with super-high refresh TVs which I find have a terrible effect to them.

/not a video-phile, so this is as technical as I get...

Gunther: T.rex

People said the same thing when movies started being made in color.

They got used to it. And quicker than you'd think.

Shrugging Atlas: T.rex: When it begins to look too much like how your eye sees real events, it becomes distracting, and becomes harder to suspend your disbelief..... No matter how intricate the forest set was constructed, it will appear like a set. No matter how well costumed Gandalf is dressed, he will look like Ian McKellen in a big silly wizard suit..

I felt this way the first time I saw Batman Begins on Blu Ray. The chase scene with the Batmobile looked too real. It felt like I was watching Cops.

You do get used to it though.

Hey, i hear ya'... I'll be seeing it in 48FPS, but i'll be treating it as a new form of media... Its no longer a movie... Its something else. like an experience. Like the viewer is really there with the participants. I just hope i can 'believe it'.

Flab: Mikey1969: Besides, why completely fark up the prequel when the first movies were so great? That's what I don't understand, when they decide to go cutting edge on a pre/sequel, and it ends up looking noticeably different from the originals.

So then, you add new CG scenes to the originals and call it "20th anniversary special edition".

LOL, that's a great point... I guess they always have that route.

The changing aesthetics of different fps rates is well studied, if not really understood.

48fps looks like cheap Spanish TV, and everything looks like a filmed stage play. Sets look like sets, makeup looks like makeup. This isn't a new discovery, and no amount of James Cameron screaming that the emperor's invisible clothes are beautiful is going to change that.

Mike Chewbacca: Mr.Tangent: I don't see a huge difference that would sway my opinion one way or the other. Seeing it with special effects added in might change that, time will tell.

To me, the 50fps was noticeably smoother, but not at all jarring. It just looked more like real life. And yeah, I think the special effects will be amazing.

I was thinking the other way where adding special effects might show more seaparation and change my view in a negative way.

Has anyone pointed out its 'a prequel not a sequel' yet?...

/oblig
//wonders what an image search for "Lord of the Phantom Menace" would yield.
///actually looking forward to 'The Hobbit'

that "demo" wasn't 50fps. It was upconverted 30fps, and that's why it looked like crap.

I cannot stand the 120hz+ TV sets that make everything look like it's being sped up like I'm watching a Benny Hill episode. Some people say, "Well, you have to get used to it." fark you. I'm not going to drop a grand on a TV set so the on board processing can make the picture look WORSE.

My neighbors got a state of the art 80 inch set. Beautiful set. I had to set it up for them and the first thing I did was eliminate all of the oversampling garbage and instantly the picture was better. The 120hz is great for watching 3D movies and some sports, but is it even necessary anymore? Most good TV sets have a high millisecond response rate, so why oversample?

I'm really curious as to what Douglas Trumball's 120 FPS system would look like projected. Supposedly, the "Hobbit" is being filmed at 120 FPS and then pulled down to 48 FPS. I think Trumball said the minimum "sweet spot" for this tech to work is 60 FPS, but the best the theaters can adapt to by December is 48 FPS.

What's the point of spending hundreds of millions of dollars if the sets look like sets, and everything looks fake, but it's a CLEARER fakeness?

I watched the second LotR film on telly over the weekend and was surprised by how poorly the cgi has stood up, let alone the acting. The scenes with the trees reminded me of 50s films where they're in a car pretending to drive to the scenery being played in the background.

As for the comparison in the article, that 50fps video honestly didn't look different to me. I think 60 might have been the way to go. I got some porn at that fps and its noticeably better looking. It's not a great porno flick though, so I rarely watch it.

I think Jacksons biggest problem is getting good performances out of his hobbits (which, again, kinda takes us back to that porno). All this fps stuff is really just ancillary fluff, much like 3D (or would stereoscopy be more honest?). If the film's any good it'll still be good at 25fps in good old fashioned 2D. That is surely a fact of life and no amount of lens flare, cgi, 3D or however many million fps are ever going to change this.

T.rex: To me, the matter of contention is that an audience actually WANTS a layer of separation between them and the world they are viewing in their entertainment...

When it begins to look too much like how your eye sees real events, it becomes distracting, and becomes harder to suspend your disbelief..... No matter how intricate the forest set was constructed, it will appear like a set. No matter how well costumed Gandalf is dressed, he will look like Ian McKellen in a big silly wizard suit..

Anyone who has ever watched the B-roll set footage on a DVD, knows what i mean... When you see something for what it really is, it looks faker.

I agree with this, except Jackson notes in the article that this is specifically to aid the 3-D experience and adds that 24fps for a 2-D version would be preferable.

It was much clearer in 50fps that the lady at 0:04 was picking her nose.

I started the article thinking 50fps, sounds very nice.

Then toward the end of the article I got the impression,

"We are hoping that 50fps will make 3D palatable and not make our viewers so nauseous".

So then 50fps just sounds like a big kluge.

wookiemonster: I'm really curious as to what Douglas Trumball's 120 FPS system would look like projected. Supposedly, the "Hobbit" is being filmed at 120 FPS and then pulled down to 48 FPS. I think Trumball said the minimum "sweet spot" for this tech to work is 60 FPS, but the best the theaters can adapt to by December is 48 FPS.

Honest question: Can the human eye even tell the difference between 60FPS and 120+FPS? The reason I ask is because when I used to play WoW you could cap at 60FPS or turn it off and let your GPU run wild. I couldn't even tell a difference between 60FPS and 120+FPS in Org.

FYI, this makes buying a 240hz set over a 120hz one worthwhile.

no.

no, no, no.

i am not watching the same commercial twice on the same page to compare the quality of two videos.

Flab: On this 5 year old laptop, I can't tell the difference.

/Dear employer, you made 9 billions in profit last year, could you spare a few pennies for the people who actually helped you? KTHXBYE.

All you need is this, it'll make the frame rate POP!

Flab: /Dear employer, you made 9 billions in profit last year, could you spare a few pennies for the people who actually helped you? KTHXBYE.

Stop wasting time on Fark, fix your entitled attitude, and we'll talk.

(j/k... my monitor is a goddamn joke)

I like it. When 50 fps becomes the norm kids who grew up watching it are going to have a hard time with all the 24fps content we have today.

Walt Disney's Snow White came out it 1937, so did The Hobbit. This year we have a Snow White movie coming out as well as another version of The Hobbit.

Well...I can honestly say I don't give a hair off one rat's ass about this film, and I refuse to give Peter Jackson any more of what little cash I have. It could be 3D, 4D, or Porn-D...don't mean squat.

Rather than be utterly and completely disappointed and confused (as I was with PJ's meandering WTF-was-that rewriting of Professor Tolkien's brilliant trilogy) I will stick with the books.

Oh, but I'm sure there will be no shortage of fanboys lining up to eat PJ's Bermudas. They can tell me just how wonderful it is....and believe you me, they *will* tell me.

In fact, I'm pretty sure that a couple fanboys here will go ahead and tell me how great it is....before it's been released! Fire away....

T.rex: To me, the matter of contention is that an audience actually WANTS a layer of separation between them and the world they are viewing in their entertainment...

When it begins to look too much like how your eye sees real events, it becomes distracting, and becomes harder to suspend your disbelief..... No matter how intricate the forest set was constructed, it will appear like a set. No matter how well costumed Gandalf is dressed, he will look like Ian McKellen in a big silly wizard suit..

Anyone who has ever watched the B-roll set footage on a DVD, knows what i mean... When you see something for what it really is, it looks faker.

I tend to agree with this. Also when it has the ultra real look to it there is a tendency to equate it to a movie that lacks production value. Much like the B-roll footage you mentioned, footage shown without that textured hollywood feel to it is automatically thought of as being inferior quality or amateur.

rocinante721: At 0:10, the kids throwing the ball.

50fps is more jarring, more stop-motion-y

Also the pan from the male spectator to the female spectator. I don't want to make a final judgment until I see it in the theater (to correct for possible download/computer display issues), but I did begin to feel the same sort of queasy I feel when I watch football on a high def TV where there's no motion correction.

I SAID "SIT BACK A FEW FEET AWAY FROM YOUR MONITOR!"

The only problem I have with the 50 fps is when the camera pans or moves suddenly. It creates a very strange effect and can make the scene look sped up.

ristst: Well...I can honestly say I don't give a hair off one rat's ass about this film, and I refuse to give Peter Jackson any more of what little cash I have. It could be 3D, 4D, or Porn-D...don't mean squat.

Rather than be utterly and completely disappointed and confused (as I was with PJ's meandering WTF-was-that rewriting of Professor Tolkien's brilliant trilogy) I will stick with the books.

Oh, but I'm sure there will be no shortage of fanboys lining up to eat PJ's Bermudas. They can tell me just how wonderful it is....and believe you me, they *will* tell me.

In fact, I'm pretty sure that a couple fanboys here will go ahead and tell me how great it is....before it's been released! Fire away....

_{Tom Bombadil}