The Hobbit

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

Heres a story from yesterdays LA Times talking a little about it. It mentions in there how a few previews of it months ago some audience members found the image a little "jarring". Like i said, its going to some time for alot of movie goers to get used to.

I'll never forget the reaction to the Beatles catalog being transferred to CD back in the mid-80's.

Please note I said transferred, not remastered or mastered for digital but transferred.

I was a young kid working a corporate summer job during college and people in the office were PISSED:

I've never heard that tambourine before.

I've never heard those voices before.

I've never heard those strings before.

This isn't the way The Beatles intended their music to sound.



48 FPS (and later 60FPS) will not only change the way we look at cinema, it'll change the way we feel about cinema.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

48 FPS (and later 60FPS) will not only change the way we look at cinema, it'll change the way we feel about cinema.

Completely.

Actually, there is no technical reason holding us back from shooting at 120 FPS right now. (current crop of digital movie cameras max at 120/5K)

My guess is that the next generation will top out at 300 FPS and we will stay there for quite some time ... instead focusing more on pushing resolution over frame rates. I just can't imagine the human eye would even be able to pick up anything after that point but I may be wrong. Either way, the main reason to stick at 300 FPS is because it can be divided easily by both 50 and 60. That reason alone may cause us to get there sooner rather than later.

[lcarus]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Completely.

Actually, there is no technical reason holding us back from shooting at 120 FPS right now. (current crop of digital movie cameras max at 120/5K)

My guess is that the next generation will top out at 300 FPS and we will stay there for quite some time ... instead focusing more on pushing resolution over frame rates. I just can't imagine the human eye would even be able to pick up anything after that point but I may be wrong. Either way, the main reason to stick at 300 FPS is because it can be divided easily by both 50 and 60. That reason alone may cause us to get there sooner rather than later.

Sounds awesome. Can't wait!

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by lcarus

Sounds awesome. Can't wait!

It's definitely some cool stuff.

On a semi-related note, if you had a 60 fps movie on blu-ray, you're screwed trying to watch it at that rate. Unless you are ok with 1280×720. And of course you are probably screwed on HDMI transfer of the video until HDMI 2.0 comes out. (which should actually be soon)

Funny thing is.. the displays are pretty much ready for 300 FPS right now.

[Deberg_1990]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

I'll never forget the reaction to the Beatles catalog being transferred to CD back in the mid-80's.

Please note I said transferred, not remastered or mastered for digital but transferred.

I was a young kid working a corporate summer job during college and people in the office were PISSED:

I've never heard that tambourine before.

I've never heard those voices before.

I've never heard those strings before.

This isn't the way The Beatles intended their music to sound.



48 FPS (and later 60FPS) will not only change the way we look at cinema, it'll change the way we feel about cinema.

......like almost anything "new", it takes time for people to adjust.

I will definately seek out a 48FPS showing of this when its released. Im very curious about it.

[sd4chiefs]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!! 71% on the tomatometer.


http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_...ected_journey/

Example: An Unexpected Journey may as well be The Phantom Menace and God help us all if the next two movies aren't better than this one.