35 
Not every theatre will be showing Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit in its native 48 frames-per-second. But for those that will, Warner Bros. has created this handy FAQ that explains why the HFR 3D (high frame rate) technology could make the film look like a TV soap opera.
Because nothing guarantees box office success like having to justify a film’s look well before it even hits theatres, right?
As we’ve already explained, films are typically shot at 24 fps which is partly what is responsible for that ‘film look’ that sitcoms and soap operas are lacking. Peter Jackson has justified his decision to shoot at the even higher 48 fps to make the 3D seem even more real and to be gentler on the eyes with less strobing and flicker. But early showings already indicate it will take audiences a while to get used to the new format, and if Warner Bros. feels they need to go so far as to educate theaters so they can respond to complaints, it might be a good idea just to stick with a 24 fps showing. [Regal Theaters via First Showing]
This Is The Hobbit in Real Life
The Hobbit Review: An Unexpected Disappointment
Here's Everything Wrong with The Hobbit
Are there any HFR 3D Cinemas in London?
Full listing here: http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012/11/07/64780-complete-listing-of-theaters-showing-hobbit-hfr-3d-imax-3d-imax-dolby-atmos/
so that’s a no then
Another sensationalist article. The FAQ merely explains what the HFR option is, similar to what you would expect a theatre had to explain what IMAX is. It also mentions that it will be available to view in a variety of other formats, not just HFR.
Getting a bit sick of the intentionally obscure and sensational articles that appear on Giz UK.
If they can get rid of the flicker in 3D they’ll be halfway to getting me to actually like it, right now between the flicker and the transparency I’d rather see stuff in 2D
If they can get rid of the flicker in 3D, and those silly glasses, I will be much more interested in the format. 2D will suffice until then.
I forgot to mention this here Udimion South Helms Deep FTW!
http://goo.gl/4t7yU
I wish people would shut up about this. Oh no, someone is trying to improve the visual quality of films, how awful.
Where in the FAQ does it say the images will look like a TV soap? Or weird in any way? Or anything other than that the new frame rate will be superior to the current 24 fps? Are you just making stuff up now?
Higher doesn’t also mean better, at 48 FPS you won’t get motion blur so things may look odd. At the pre-showings people complained that it looked like a individual images and not a moving object on screen.
There is a reason we stopped using 50 FPS.
Not saying it does. I’ve never watched 48 FPS so don’t know if its better or worse. It’s just that the article clearly says the notice explains to customers why the images will look “weird” and like a “TV Soap Opera.” I read through the notice and saw nothing in the notice per se that would imply either of those things, so I was wondering where those statements came from.
Soaps are typicality filmed on cheap high FPS cameras where as films are filmed on expensive 24 fps cameras. Oh course the fact the the video is soaps looks rubbish probably has something to do with the fact that they use cheap cameras.
I understand the bit about soaps = rubbish. I’m looking for the part in this “notice” that either says 48fps = rubbish, or 48fps = soaps. Andrew may well believe those statements himself, and he may be perfectly correct, but he says that this notice explains why this may be. That’s where he used a bit of imagination I think.
When will stereoscopic 3D go away? How long did it take to go away in the ’80s? I wanted to see Frankenweenie but my local cinema is only showing it in 3D.
And speaking of cinema, how come we still have to wait THREE-AND-A-QUARTER FREAKING MONTHS for Wreck-It Ralph!? Outside of the Final Fantasy movies, I’ve never been so excited for a film, and now I’m having to dodge Yankee spoilers left and right!
Close one eye and it disappears
You might be interested in these – http://www.2d-glasses.com/
Not sure where you can get them in the UK, but if you search around you can probably find them.
you *could* spend ~$10 on “conversion glasses”
or you *could* pop the plastic lenses out of regular glasses and switch them around.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereoscopy#Polarization_systems
…but either way you’ll still get 30% reduced brightness and ~20% more on the cost of your ticket price.
See for yourself – http://www.48fpsmovies.com/The_Hobbit_An_Unexpected_Journey_Trailer.mp4
It doesn’t improve 2D and makes it look like video. I’m sure it’s best for 3D as right now the screen is duller than 2D hence this ‘improvement’. If you think movies are improved by 3D, there’s no point arguing the toss here.
I’ll be watching it in 2D in 24fps.
Gahhh! Master betrayed us. Wicked. Tricksy, False. We ought to wring his filthy little neck…
Master’s my friend…
Why do it?
Peter Jackson said so.