Tell me again how having everything at 60 FPS+ is ideal.

Games, yes. Movies, no.

I don't remember making this claim.

Edit: Bah, nevermind. Just in a bad mood.

60 FPS is hardly ideal when it comes to movies.

Now if we could just reach 666 FPS, we'd be golden.


But hmm. I fail to see how a high FPS would make the constume and setting's lllusion fall to pieces, when a low FPS would keep up the illusion.
Once I see a youtube comparison between the two, I'll know better what the fuss is about.

The details are just too visible and clear, which kinda ruins the movie "magic".

Just like watching some movies on blu-ray, like Spaceballs or Big Trouble in Little China and thanks to the high resolution you really see how poorly done some of the special effects are, which was not the case with the DVD versions.

Sometimes perfection isn't desirable

I'm not going to judge before I see it in action. Like that reviewer said: "isn't a case of good or bad; it's an aesthetic choice."

But who was arguing that 60 FPS is ideal for everything? It's definitely ideal for games, but that doesn't mean the same standard applies to movies.

Won't making mistakes more noticeable force filmmakers to improve the quality of their special effects?

What movie is this? I'd like to know, so I can laugh at how slow it is.

Nevermind - I see it. hahaha

I've gotten that impression just from the previews on TV and I'm assuming the commercials aren't at 48FPS. I just think the characters (mainly the dwarves) look ridiculous and overdone.

Not to meantion opening a gate to the darkest reigons of Hell .

That was said about music CDs, that they are too perfect, or sterile.

Only if you run the film backwards, though!

I've seen 48 fps trailers of The Hobbit both at home and at my local theater (yes, I'm sure), and I've found it absolutely beautiful every time I've seen it. I don't understand people that say it looks like a bad British sitcom; I completely disagree with the notion that the set pieces and outfits look "phony" at a higher speed.

The way I see it, most of the people that are vehement and angry about Jackson's decision to shoot the Hobbit at 48 fps are just letting themselves be caught up in a lot of unsubstantiated negative hype, and that is completely irrational. If you've seen the film or trailers with your own eyes, given them a fair chance to impress you, and are still unhappy with 48 fps, fine. I don't want to argue that kind of choice. But I think it looks excellent, and there's no way that "arguments" like the one in the OP could convince me otherwise.

I saw Public Enemy which I believe was shot with a higher framerate. The movie almost made me naseous, but I think that came down to the over-reliance of shakycam during action sequences.

Do you get headaches from watching TV shows too? Because those have always been at a higher framerate.

I find the psychological impact of this kind of stuff fascinating. The historical reason for 24fps in cinema has pretty much been technological limitations and saving film reel space. Over such a large period of time this has made the public largely associate 24fps with the Hollywood blockbuster feel and adds another layer to the suspense of disbelief.

I'm that kind of person who tends to get sick by shaky cameras, fast pace scenes and 3D technology. I can't stand watching a 3D movie in a cinema, or anywhere. Makes me want to puke.

No really. I'll break out into a cold sweat and be so nauseated that I have to go outside to catch some fresh air.

Public Enemy is a South Korean film. Public Enemies was shot at 24 fps like every other film from Hollywood.

Comparing film framerate and game framerate is apples and oranges. The way your eyes track things is completely different between the two, for one, and film isn't being rendered in real-time. Film is recorded at the framerate it's intended to be viewed at, so there is a built-in blur effect that smooths the transitions between frames because things move while the "shutter" is open. When games are rendered there is no such blur, so the gaps between those frames in a game at 24 fps are a LOT more noticeable that the gaps between frames in a film shot/viewed at 24 fps.

That said, I haven't seen The Hobbit at 48 fps, so I can't judge. I will say that there are a lot of factors that will determine whether or not it looks good. The only films I've seen played at very high framerates have been run through a frame interpolation post-processing engine (like 120 Hz+ TVs have), and I agree that looks terrible, but I can't say what something shot at that framerate will look like.

Were these reviewers aware of the 48 fps feature and its potential effects before they watched the movie? If so, this could be an excellent example of expectation bias.

Have there been any major tests of the subjective effects of 48 fps? I'd like to see a test of a few groups:

• Viewers told it's 48 fps and its possible effects, and watch 48 fps
  
• Viewers told it's 48 fps and its possible effects, and watch 24 fps
  
• Vice versa for both when told it's 24 fps
  
• Two control groups told nothing, that watch 24 and 48 fps (a (figuratively) blind test)

Unless the game also uses motion blur.

It's really not the same kind of blur. It certainly doesn't fool my eyes/brain the way that the natural blur in film does. That, and real motion blur effects are typically more expensive from a processing perspective than simply running the game at a higher framerate would be.

Alright.

If this were true in all cases, then no game would ever use motion blur.

Of course there are cheaper ways to do motion blur if you want to achieve a stylized, "hey, this is motion blur" effect. The effect that allows film to look good at lower framerates is not apparent to the eye/brain when you're watching the film, though. The effect used in most games in intended to be noticeable, so it's just a special effect rather than a real attempt at compensating for low framerate. If you think about it, creating this effect "for real" in something being rendered in real time like a game would require the game to be able to predict the future, would it not? It would have to keep a copy of the pre-blurred previous frame, render the current frame, and render the next frame in order for a blur algorithm to work properly.

The point being that you have to render the "in-between" frames (although perhaps not quite as many) in order to calculate what the blurred frame will look like, so why not just output all of the frames you've already rendered anyway and shoot for 60fps?

Motion blur is sometimes overdone but its original purpose is in fact to provide motion blur, not give the viewer another "special effect" to gawk at.

Which is exactly what they do in certain implementations of the effect. It's called triple buffering.

And even if they don't do that, the effect still has real benefits for most people, myself included. Though as I said before, if you don't find it convincing... well, I won't argue that.