Obviously, the human brain doesn’t process visual information in “frame rate”, but we can certainly talk about the aesthetics of HFR. Do you like the way it looks?

Re: digital replacing film, dig is merely less expensive, and nearly all of my clients go for the price point as the highest consideration. But when it comes to image quality, film is still the gold standard – by miles. This year we saw Samsara, The Master and Batman III and we’re still having this debate? Bummer it’s prohibitively expensive. Anyway, it’s pointless to compare – they’re two separate mediums. Which is better for painting – oil or acrylic?

But, I predict most of our children will be watching movies in the theatre in 3D at 120fps.

Remember when people were adamant that digital would NEVER replace film?

I’d bet that the majority of film within 25 years will have a higher framerate than 24. 24fps is so ingrained with us as to what we know as ‘film’. Of course anything else will feel weird for some time. But if the majority of film you saw was 48fps, then a 24fps film would feel weird.

I’ve been interested in this for years, having followed Trumbull’s efforts for a long time. But having seen it, I have to say that it just looks exactly like interlaced video. There is no ‘enhanced’ detail or reality – Mike’s got it right, it just looks like a South Korean historical soap opera. 48FPS is NOT how the world looks – wave your hand in front of your face and find out how much motion blur there is. HFR is jarring, distracting and just plain freaky.

For those interested in stereo filming, this is a great case study in what NOT to do – giving our audience massive eyestrain isn’t something they’ll thank you for. Stereo can add depth when properly used, but stuff shouldn’t be coming out of the screen at you so much that it takes a hour for your eyes to uncross.

As a filmmaker and a movie buff I’m excited for stereoscopic to work…but so far, still waiting. HFR can hit file 13.

When I heard about the issues with the 48fps, the description reminded me of problems with low shutter speeds. The movement sounded similar to 24fps below 1/48. I haven’t seen the film yet, but does anyone know if 48fps at 1/96 is a more cinematic look than 48fps at 1/64?

My understanding is that the film was shot in 1/64 to be able to more easily down convert to 24fps (if it was shot at 1/96, 24fps would be like the Hobbit in shell shock land). If 48fps at 1/96 is a significant improvement, I wonder if using beam splitters on a couple extra cameras to record in two different frame rates and shutter speeds would work (like those film makers that used a beam splitter and multiple cameras to make HDR video).

I think a Football game would really benefit from this technology, but a world of magic? No way!

Best
Lliam

3d docs!! WOOO!!

Since I’m poor, I watched the movie in 2D at 24fps, and how I wish it was 48 (not 3D, however). All of the epic panning shots were completely blurry because, to show at 24fps, they simply took out every other frame. Unless the image is still, you can’t see it. It’s not bad-looking — it’s actually unwatchable.