# 48fps - Too Fast?



## dr croubie (Apr 25, 2012)

Given how much everyone around here whinges and whines when the latest camera doesn't have 1080p60, I thought this was an interesting read:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-17836380
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movies/2012/04/cinemacon-hobbit-frame-rate-depp-gatsby.html


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Apr 25, 2012)

I think most people want 60p so they have the option to slow things down.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 25, 2012)

How about 600fps? It depends on what you need and are willing to pay for.

http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2010/12/01/famous-footwear-neighborhood/


----------



## psolberg (Apr 26, 2012)

HurtinMinorKey said:


> I think most people want 60p so they have the option to slow things down.





Mt Spokane Photography said:


> How about 600fps? It depends on what you need and are willing to pay for.
> 
> http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2010/12/01/famous-footwear-neighborhood/



neither of you seems to have read the OP's links. the issue is NOT about cameras. It is about PEOPLE.
jez people read!!!!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 26, 2012)

psolberg said:


> HurtinMinorKey said:
> 
> 
> > I think most people want 60p so they have the option to slow things down.
> ...


 
The two links posted by the OP are about high frame rates used in producing films. I did read them.


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Apr 26, 2012)

I read the two links before you posted them. MY point was, that even thought Peter Jackson is using 48fps for smooth 3D, most of the people around here who are "whining"(as you say) want 60fps so they can have the option for slow mo. At least that's my impression.


----------



## pdirestajr (Apr 26, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> Given how much everyone around here whinges and whines when the latest camera doesn't have 1080p60, I thought this was an interesting read:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-17836380
> http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movies/2012/04/cinemacon-hobbit-frame-rate-depp-gatsby.html



People around here will "whine" about anything. If all cameras came with 1080p 60fps, they'd want 120fps or 4K video...


----------



## psolberg (Apr 26, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > HurtinMinorKey said:
> ...



yes but the greater point was that people are used to 24fps being "film" and anything higher is receiving mixed reactions because it looks like a tv show or documentary instead of a movie. This was never about camera issues but about people's perception of how movies should look like.


----------



## NormanBates (Apr 27, 2012)

so that's it:
* I don't like high fps, it looks really bad (actually, I can know if my camera is set to 24p or 60p just by looking at the LCD screen: if it looks like a cheap soap opera, it's 60p)
* still, I whine for 1080p60; but don't worry, I'll conform it to 24p before showing it to anybody


----------



## JurijTurnsek (Apr 28, 2012)

people want 60fps for slow motions really, but I've seen some skateboard movies and clips in 720p60 and It felt weird just for a minute or two. I'm really interested to see what 48fps looks like on the big screen


----------



## EYEONE (Apr 28, 2012)

I read an article about this yesterday. I was curious as to how it would relate to the 120hz TVs. I have a 120hz TV and people always comment about how weird it looks. It does look weird like a soap opera or a cheap TV show. I don't even notice it anymore. Is this how it will look? Cause I'm fine with that.


----------



## psolberg (Apr 30, 2012)

dilbert said:


> One outcome of 48fps shooting should be that the 3D version will be 24fps for both eyes, rather than 12fps for each eye, which should make the 3D easier on the eyes for a lot of people.



that should be nice but 3D is suck gimick for me that I will never own a TV that make me wear glasses like a dork. I don't mind 48p. In fact I'd much rather have 60p or higher in plain old 2D.


----------



## chrisdeckard (Apr 30, 2012)

A few people touched on it, but there is quite a difference between playback at 48 fps and recording at any other speed. If I read somewhere correctly a while back, the Hobbit was shot mostly at 4k 96 fps. This gives them the option in post to slow things down with incredible detail. The RED cameras that they are using are absolutely amazing. I was in a short video shot on a RED EPIC last summer and it was better than anything I could have imagined.

Super Mario Marathon 4 : Boredom is in Another Castle!

I also watched a live stream of some video people who were filming a light bulb being smashed. They were shooting at 120 fps, and they were not able to actually capture the glass cracking. I think they estimated they would need something in the 500-1000 fps in order to capture the glass cracking. More fps is like having more resolution, except not in pixels, but in time.

We are all "used" to 24 fps in the theater, and 30 fps on TV. Once we become accustomed to 48 fps, it may not be such a big deal. If it looks anything like the "enhanced" modes that modern TVs have, though, I will probably hate it too. I always turn that crap off because I think it looks like campy pan and scan.


----------



## psolberg (Apr 30, 2012)

interesting reply at eoshd link

http://www.eoshd.com/content/7996/peter-jackson-answers-the-hobbit-criticism-zeiss-anamorphic-for-september-nikon-d3200-with-d800-image-processor-for-699

I'll have to watch this movie for sure now.


----------



## Neeneko (Apr 30, 2012)

I was actually kinda floored by the 'it looks un-cinematic' criticism since it really came down to 'it doesn't look wrong enough, it is not twue cinema!'. People routinely game at sometimes hundreds of frames per second, once one gets over the subtle 'this looks wrong' feeling and realizes that one is used to a flaw that has been mitigated, it works pretty well.

It kinda reminds me of fantasy physics, the stuff one sees in most movies. The brain gets used to things looking wrong to the point that once something actually looks right it feels off.


----------



## EYEONE (Apr 30, 2012)

dilbert said:


> One outcome of 48fps shooting should be that the 3D version will be 24fps for both eyes, rather than 12fps for each eye, which should make the 3D easier on the eyes for a lot of people.



That was my first thought. I don't really think 3D adds anything to a movie but I'd be more inclined to watch a movie in 3D if the action was so broken up and jittery. It looks like I don't have V-sync on my eyes turned on.


----------



## JurijTurnsek (May 1, 2012)

watching those productions clips on youtube got me really excited on the movie. they're simply brilliant. also a lot of camera porn in the - 48 red epics.

i'm keeping an open mind and am very anxious on seeing the end product


----------

