Bleeding Cool
There’s a shocking amount of misinformation and misunderstanding out there regarding ‘high frame rate cinema,’ such as the 48 frames per second format of The Hobbit or the projected 60 frames per second frame rate of the Avatar sequels.
Let’s clear up one bit of nonsense right away: you’ve almost certainly never seen anything shot and projected in one of those higher frame rates. If you’ve seen something in 48fps or 60fps on TV then what you saw was something played back at that frame rate but not produced at that frame rate. That’s a different thing entirely. Entirely. That involves artificial frames filling in the gaps between the ones that were actually recorded, and these “junk” frames don’t make for a good experience.
So, don’t think that The Hobbit is going to look like some crappy, overly shiny football game you saw one time. Because it isn’t.
The latest "Deadpool & Wolverine" trailer gave us a glimpse at the MCU's golden boys kicking butt and taking names - as well as a whole mess of Easter eggs.
With the new The Crow remake coming soon, we take a look back at the 30-year-old cult classic original–and where the stars are now.
Kaam Chalu Hai Review: Based on true events, this movie is thought-provoking and inspiring
This is without a doubt the best explanation of the higher frame rate I've seen out there. It actually made me far more interested in seeing what all the excitement/detraction is about. When I watch those new TVs with 240hz refresh rate, I think the image looks strange and and plasticy...or something. I can't quite put my finger on it it just looks screwy to me. This is exactly what I envision the higher frame rate movie shoots look like but maybe I'm wrong.
Has anyone here at Filmwatch actually SEEN a 48fps+ movie?
I wonder if this was the plan all along, or if this is a result of the negative feedback they got from the presentation they did for Hobbit showing it at 48fps? I want to say this was the plan all along.
If they stand by it so much, they should just make the 48fps a wide release and not just selective. I don't see much of a point if it's a select release. I don't think mass amounts of people are going to go out in droves to seek out 48fps, so I doubt it'll make an impact in general. They should just leave it as a standard across the board for the film's release and go with it.
Would I be mistaken to say that Public Enemies, starring Christian Bale, was shot in a higher frame rate in certain areas? In the cinema, it was extremely noticeable and most certainly unpleasant to watch.