Zak Forsman
Major Contributor
Looks like the the Hobbit is shooting at 48fps. http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/20149/news-shorts-april-8th-2011
James Cameron on 24 fps cinema
- Thread starter HMR
- Start date
hyphygreek
Well-known member
Watching 2D at 60 fps on the big screen. Looks terrible it is destroying my eyes, and I have a headache from it. So 3D can pull it off?
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
I don't like it... but that doesn't mean it's bad.
It's new.
People jumped out of their seats when a locomotive came toward camera in one of the earliest motion picture projections. People didn't think sound would be all that great, and etc.
Nobody ever said 24fps was the best way of projecting images. It's really not. Our eyes can 'refresh' and process imaging much faster. So if you were to want the most 'realistic' depiction of reality, it would be most likely be better at much higher fps capture and playback. However, 24fps is simply what we are used to and what we don't find distracting. Cinema at framerate capture and framerate playback of what we approximately see would be too unsettling for mainstream audience... however, subject them to it for 10 years, and you'll find they, along with the generation beneath them, will have become used to or less bothered.
I can't tell you where the industry is headed, but know that there will be advancements that will not seem natural at first, but will become ok over time. For better or for worse.
The real question is if any big companies will be willing to gamble on a new technology that may not be immediately liked. I have a feeling that will retard any change in our industry.
It's new.
People jumped out of their seats when a locomotive came toward camera in one of the earliest motion picture projections. People didn't think sound would be all that great, and etc.
Nobody ever said 24fps was the best way of projecting images. It's really not. Our eyes can 'refresh' and process imaging much faster. So if you were to want the most 'realistic' depiction of reality, it would be most likely be better at much higher fps capture and playback. However, 24fps is simply what we are used to and what we don't find distracting. Cinema at framerate capture and framerate playback of what we approximately see would be too unsettling for mainstream audience... however, subject them to it for 10 years, and you'll find they, along with the generation beneath them, will have become used to or less bothered.
I can't tell you where the industry is headed, but know that there will be advancements that will not seem natural at first, but will become ok over time. For better or for worse.
The real question is if any big companies will be willing to gamble on a new technology that may not be immediately liked. I have a feeling that will retard any change in our industry.
Last edited:
Jordan Scott Price
Veteran
Case in point.
I think it would be foolish to assume 3D will go the way of the dodo at this point simply because a lot of us don't like it. There's just too much money in it right now, and that will spur development in the technology, which will, as you pointed out, likely make the format more pleasing to the eye, one way or another, for someone somewhere paying $10, $15, $20 a ticket.
3D is and has been a fad, but only now is there really the technology to sustain and further it.