faceless007 said:Doesn't 48fps in 3D equate to 24fps per eye anyway?
You could, but if it looks like shit what would be the point ;-)StuBurns said:Probably, but they certainly could do it that way.
Certainly there will be 24Hz versions available for theaters. The producers would wouldn't release it if something this high-budget couldn't have large-scale release.Although the way the article states it as a measure of 'future proofing' the film does certainly imply there will be 24fps versions at the very least at cinemas. I think separating 2D and 3D is simple enough for consumers, but when you start dabbling with framerates people are going to get confused, I could see them wanting a more consumer friendly response than you have to buy a new TV.
I don't believe it would look like shit. Can we test it right now? Get some 48fps footage and play it on a console. Games certainly look massively better at mid forty framerates than thirty.Raistlin said:You could, but if it looks like shit what would be the point ;-)
Just to clarify ... 3D TV does not drop the framerate in half for 24Hz material.Willy105 said:No. You are getting 48fps for both eyes.
Why would it be half? This ain't 3D TV.
Yep. I will be waiting a while.Raistlin said:He's doing both ... at least in theaters.
You'll probably be waiting for a while if you literally mean inputting 48Hz. That isn't part of any exist spec. You'd first need a new HDMI spec, and then an entirely new BD spec.
No flicker here son.If your TV is really display at 48Hz, and you think it looks just fine, I question how useful native 48Hz would be to you. If you don't note flicker you aren't particularly sensitive to framerates. I suppose you'd still probably see the blur reduction though. There is a relation between temporal sensitivity and perceived resolution, but it's not an entirely simple relationship.
That's not really the same thing ... and anyway, they're jittery.StuBurns said:I don't believe it would look like shit. Can we test it right now? Get some 48fps footage and play it on a console. Games certainly look massively better at mid forty framerates than thirty.
Based on your second answer, I'm not sure I understand the first. Or at least I hope that's not your main reason for waiting.Zabka said:Yep. I will be waiting a while.
No flicker here son.
Not necessarily, they might agree on 48 fps as a standard.Scullibundo said:If The Hobbit ends up being projected at 48fps, it will pretty much guarantee that Cameron will go 60fps on Avatar 2.
Also, whilst this news is indeed awesome, it already saddens me that I'll be thinking of Tintin as dated when it comes out with its strobing 3D and all.
Look worse than what? 24fps? Because that should be the comparison. I'd like to see, I find it hard to believe it wouldn't be much nicer.Raistlin said:That's not really the same thing ... and anyway, they're jittery.
Film content output at 60Hz uses a process known as 2:3 pulldown. This produces an artifact known as telecine judder due to the irregular cadence. I personally hate it, but most only find it mildly annoying. Typically it's only really obvious in pans, etc.
The problem with going from 48Hz to 60Hz is that you would be doubling the space between the irregularities (which would make it more noticeable), and when the irregularity occurs, it would actually be for double in length. That would most certainly be more noticeable.
If someone has good SW we could make some test material. Logically looking at the math though, it would look worse.
Darkgran said:Really disappointed about the 3D.
I'm hyped about the movie but screw the 3D.
You drunk?Raistlin said:Based on your second answer, I'm not sure I understand the first. Or at least I hope that's not your main reason for waiting.
RustyNails said:48 fps? Nausea incoming
It would.Expendable. said:Pardon my ignorance, but wouldn't a smoother image decrease nausea? (especially in the case of 3D)
yes, nausea incoming because of your post.RustyNails said:48 fps? Nausea incoming
Raistlin said:Just to clarify ... 3D TV does not drop the framerate in half for 24Hz material.
If you were implying current tech wouldn't be able to handle 48Hz 3D, yes that's correct ... but I think some might think you're stating 3D TV's actually drop framerates on content made for it (TV broadcasts, games, BD 3D). They do not.
I am talking about 24fps. What do you think 2:3 pulldown is for?StuBurns said:Look worse than what? 24fps? Because that should be the comparison. I'd like to see, I find it hard to believe it wouldn't be much nicer.
I'm stating that if you truly cannot see flicker in a true 48Hz refresh, it's questionable how sensitive to motion you are. ie. you may not get that much out of the increase framerate.Zabka said:You drunk?
I am excited for 48 fps movies. I am happy with the way my TV handles current standards. I will not buy a new TV until new standards are in place and being used in production TVs.
192 Hz TVs or bust!
Indeed.Dead said:It would.
But that won't stop people from spreading misinformation, lol.
see my post aboveTathanen said:So let's assume this comes out on blu ray at 48fps right, and you have a TV that can just do 60fps. It should still look much better, yeah? They double frames and stuff from a 24fps source to get it to show on a 60fps TV, presumably they'll have to do less frame duplicating to get from 48 to 60 and there will be more picture data in there anyway.
Harry Potter said:
I doubt he cares. Whats good for 3D is in Camerons interests. If anything, he's probably glad PJ is shooting in 48fps.TekkenMaster said:Cameron won't let Peter Jackson one-up him...he'll invent something even beyond 48 fps 3D for the Avatar sequels.
Dead said:I doubt he cares. Whats good for 3D is in Camerons interests. If anything, he's probably glad PJ is shooting in 48fps.
If he was worried about other Directors using it before him, he wouldn't be going around making huge presentations and telling people to do it.
It's not like Cameron came up with the idea or anything anyway. Hell, this wouldn't even be the first times we see high-speed movies.Dead said:I doubt he cares. Whats good for 3D is in Camerons interests. If anything, he's probably glad PJ is shooting in 48fps.
If he was worried about other Directors using it before him, he wouldn't be going around making huge presentations and telling people to do it.
It's an LG 42LH30 LCD. The only TVs I've heard of that have flicker problems at 48Hz are plasmas. 24p TV RoundupRaistlin said:I'm stating that if you truly cannot see flicker in a true 48Hz refresh, it's questionable how sensitive to motion you are. ie. you may not get that much out of the increase framerate.
I'd like to clarify a few things though. What type of TV do you have. Is it plasma or LCD? What model?
YepRaistlin said:It's not like Cameron came up with the idea or anything anyway. Hell, this wouldn't even be the first times we see high-speed movies.
Maxivision48 - 1999 tech (48fps, but with the advantage of using 35mm film)
Showscan - Late 70's and 80's tech (60fps)
That is not even close to true.Neuromancer said:The human eye can only detect 24 fps anyway I thought, anything higher is just wasted.
So why do we have 60fps games? Why does NTSC video run at approx. 30fps? Not even remotely true.Neuromancer said:The human eye can only detect 24 fps anyway I thought, anything higher is just wasted.
Anyway I'm pumped!
I see - that's why I asked. LCD will not have flicker (normally*). What allows Plasma to exhibit dramatically better motion resolution also results in flicker if the refresh is below your flicker fusion threshold.Zabka said:It's an LG 42LH30 LCD. The only TVs I've heard of that have flicker problems at 48Hz are plasmas. 24p TV Roundup
I hope you aren't implying Plasma is some sort of inferior, antiquated technology. If PlasmaGaf catches wind, this thread will move from being a train derailment to a train derailment on a suspension bridgeIt's not a CRT or an old timey crank projector.
Actually if the projector is using the typical double-shuttering display method (which is typical actually), then yes ... yes I do. Thank god no one uses non-shuttering projectors in this day an age.Do you have problems watching 2d movies in the theater?
teiresias said:Oh great, "The Hobbit" to have the "classy" look of such high art as "Days of Our Lives" and "General Hospital". I always wanted my movies to look like they were filmed like soap operas.
teiresias said:Oh great, "The Hobbit" to have the "classy" look of such high art as "Days of Our Lives" and "General Hospital". I always wanted my movies to look like they were filmed like soap operas.
Yarp.Raistlin said:Blathering blatherskite
Once they get the digital cameras up to insane resolutions, this will be the norm. Shooting in IMAX level resolutions in 3D at 48fps.OuterWorldVoice said:It doesn't work like that. On film, it looks very distinctive and impressive. Like the difference between temporal anti-aliasing and 60 fps.
It's a very cool effect. Since I can't see 3D, this is a gimmick I can appreciate. They should also film everything in 70mm and above.