I'm fairly certain that's why Peter Jackson shot the movie in 48 FPS was to address the problems the movie would have with 3D technology on top of that (It is in 3D, right? I haven't seen it yet, and my theater probably won't get it until January 2013 at best).Scrumpmonkey said:I would also like to add that many critics referred to it as "Too bright". This is actually a legit comment as the higher projection speed means there is less 'between time' in frame transition and actually increases the perceived amount of light. I'm not sure what compensation was made for this in the digital grading but traditional theaters and screens may have to adapt to this since the light intensity is matched for 24FPS.
Just an interesting technical point.
Lol. I also came here thinking this would at least be about comics again.Eabus said:Thanks Bob, that explanes why my roommate was going on about frame rates right before we went to see The Hobbit. But what does it have to do with Supergirl?
Most stuff on consoles runs 30 frames or sub-1080p (or both). Almost any game on PC you can run at 60fps and way higher, as long as I don't try to do that at 2560x1400 with AA on.gardian06 said:60fps is a target, but many of those games due to differences in even small points will drop that number to somewhere around 40-50 on the PC, but will mostly maintain high 50s on the consoles
I also found that the 48 fps helped the CGI characters a great deal, but made the live actors look CGI as well. Actually it seemed to make EVERYTHING look CGI. I think there's still some bugs to work out.Falseprophet said:I saw it in 48 FPS. Here are my spoiler-free thoughts:
When it came to the fully-CGI aspects of the film, especially CGI characters and creatures, it was excellent. They felt really alive and authentic. We're used to this from video game cutscenes and the like, though. I think a fully-CGI film will look absolutely great in 48 FPS.
Conversely, when it came to scenes with live actors, it often looked too real. Like a bunch of LARPers with bad makeup putting on a play. This might have been fine with a story more grounded in reality, but my girlfriend and I felt it detracted from the mythic/fantasy illusion they were going for. It got a bit better later on. We want to see it again in 24 FPS and see if that restores the illusion.
Then again, the 3D did look a lot more convincing in 48 FPS than most 24 FPS films do.
On the other hand, when the camera moved very quickly, especially during action scenes, it almost gave me nausea. With static shots or slow pans it was fine. But if the side benefit of this is the death of shaky-cam, consider me an instant convert.
I'm not dismissive of the format as a whole, and I think it will definitely improve over time, but, like Bob, I feel filmmakers will have to do a lot of reinventing of their craft. Not just camera placement, but lighting, editing techniques, new types of makeup, and so on. And I'm not sure having a fantasy film being the first test of the format was the wisest decision, but as my friend said, someone had to be first.