The Hobbit 48fps Thoughts?

So I saw The Hobbit twice, once in 3D at 24fps at once in 3D at 48fps. For those of you who don't know, the movies you watch are normally filmed at 24fps. That's the way it has always been. Have you seen The Dark Knight Rises? If so, you saw it at 24fps. Peter Jackson decided to experiment  and also filmed The Hobbit at 48fps also. The HFR (High Frame-Rate) version was supposed to be groundbreaking, but for me it lacked in quite a few places...

Firstly I will say that it looked lovely. From a quality point of view there was something about it which made it look 10 times better than the normal one. Another positive point is that motion looks a lot smoother at 48fps. However, I did not like the experience for the most part.

Think about this: You play a game at 20fps. It's choppy and slow. Now, imagine playing a game at 40fps. A lot smoother, don't you think? Only, the video would seem faster too. This is what I thought as I sat watching The Hobbit. At points, it looked as if it was sped up! When people walked, it was unnaturally fast. In the normal version. everything looks a lot more natural. There is a point where the Pale Orc speaks, only it looked like a mistake, the footage going in fast-forward for a few seconds. And the scene where the dwarves wash up!? Don't get me looked so alien. Movies were never meant to be played at higher frame rates.

I could probably tolerate around 35fps but anything over is just too much!I'd like to know your thoughts, however. Did you see The Hobbit HFR? Did you like it?

I saw it in HFR, and I thought it looked great. I didn't see it at it's normal 24 FPS, but I don't understand why people are complaining so much about 48 FPS. I thought it looked fine. It was very fluid, and I didn't notice anything out of the ordinary. If you put the two side by side, then I might be able to notice a difference, but I imagine the difference is very minimal anyway.

I think most people complaining about it are just experiencing the placebo effect. People are just complaining about it just because they know it's not what they're used to. If you didn't tell them it was HFR, then they probably wouldn't notice a difference.

I know what you mean. I did, however go into the 48fps version not knowing that it was the HFR version. I went with my brother and then my friend said we should go aswell, that's why I ended up seeing it twice. I actually asked the usher what was wrong with the picture. He told me then it was the other version.

I game at 120fps I have no idea what people are getting so worked up about, the only real criticism I've heard is that they still don't have the motion blur and some of the post effects quite right for the new frame rate.

FPS with regard to gaming is different from movies in general.

Why would the video picture speed up with a higher frame rate? The frame rate is not tied to the speed. I saw the hobbit in 3D, looked absolutely brilliant.

The frame rate is the number of frames per second, and so 48 fps is twice the speed changing from frame to frame of 24 fps but the speed of the movie remains the same, just with added fluidity. Its like having an animation of a stickman running containing just 8 frames. The video would look okay but choppy. Now add a frame in between each of the 8 frames and half the speed of each frame. The animation is smoother because there are more 'pictures' of the stickman in motion.

I haven't seen the movie yet, but I'd imagine 48fps wouldn't look too much different from a soap opera or a home video (ugly as shit). Video just looks better at 24fps.

I wanted to see it in 48 FPS, but afaik none of the cinema's here displayed it at that framerate. So I ended up watching it in 2d... I should have gone and seen it in 3d though, but I didn't have the time to see it again.

Is your monitor more 120hertz?

I loved it! I actually thought the version we saw wasn't 48fps and I had to double check with customer service of the theater. It was so fluid and incredible looking :) It seemed natural to me

Yeah it's strange because only my brother and I noticed the "sped-up" film (we were the only ones who saw it at 24fps previously). I probably would've liked it if i just saw the HFR version...I don't know about it though, a lot of people loathe it (I think it's only ok).

I noticed the difference at 48 FPS, and I think it will gain traction if more people try it (production-wise).  In many scenes I thought it gave a much more realistic picture.  It felt like I was watching something real, not an image.   One area where we can experiment with 48 FPS is antimated movies.  I can't wait until H.265 hits the big stage for higher quality video playback.

My parents, who have no idea about 48FPS but watch a fair number of movies every year, didn't mention a thing.  They thought the visual effects were great, albeit an odd storyline lol.  WTF peter jackson? I sure hope someone edits your Hobbit trilogy down into 1 decent movie (book version).

I'm not sure why people were complaining. I didn't find anything wrong with the movie video quality wise. To me people subconsously make up problems and this is one of them. I mean if 48 FPS gives you a headache, then most monitors should when playing a video game for instance. I would think that the movie would look better and smoother than the 24 FPS version. (I only saw the 3D 48FPS version.) I also cannot wait for H.265. Uploading youtube videos of the same quality with a smaller file size is going to make my day. ;)

I only really noticed in certain points, which each lasted about a second. I was watching in HFR 3D so it was difficult to notice.

My friend has one of those TVs that takes a movie source of something like 24-30 fps and converts it to 60 or 120fps or whatever by generating frames in between. At first it looks a little bizzare but that's just a matter of you being so used to films running at a lower framerate, IMO. Remember, there is probably nothing inherently wrong with watching something at a high framerate, I think 24fps as a video standard and interlacing came about due to bandwidth constraints for tv networks.


Its like a 3D movie, you notice it for a few moments then get immersed in the movie and forget about it, and walk away with a headache.

I've also noticed that with higher refresh rate content sometimes you notice flaws in the acting or a poorly maneuvered camera more than normal, its just more 'raw' feeling.

I want to go and see it in 28fps now, 48fps in some places made me fell sick, the 3D can fuck off though!

If you liked the fluidity of 48 FPS, you may want to take a look at the Smooth Video Project, 

Its free, and it interpolates any video (avi mkv etc) in real time, up to 60 fps or whatever refresh rate you have set your monitor to. Absolutely brilliant. My friend has a TV which has built in interpolation from any source (tru-motion?), which looks great, with SVP it looks just like that.

First off, its 23.976fps, but one problem is that the 48fps didn't exactly match the movie or how it was shot.

I loved the fluidity of the HFR version of the Hobbit, but I cannot stand 3D glasses.  I wear glasses, and 3D glasses is probably one of the most discriminatory things out there, up there with the "four eyes" insult really.  Seriously Hollywood, there are phone cameras that capture 60fps WITHOUT 3D, please...