[Movies / TV] 24fps vs 48fps

[Deleted]

48fps is the framerate some TV-series use. A good example would be the Bold and the Beautiful, as well as other similar soaps. I just found out Peter Jackson is planning on releasing the Hobbit as 48fps, so I thought I'd gauge people's opinions on the matter. If you've ever watched 48fps, you should know exactly what I'm talking about.

To me personally, 24fps has a kind of a "movie feeling", and watching 48fps just feels unreal, and it looks like a soap, fully CGI, or someone's home video.

Here are a couple of examples I found in case you've never seen 48fps or don't know exactly what I mean:

This is 24fps.
This is 48fps.

You'll have to let those .gif animations load before you can see the difference.

So, what do you guys think? Keep movies and TV-series 24fps, or make everything 48fps?

[George]

I prefer 24 fps for regular movies, more (the more the better) for documentaries and animated movies.

[Deleted]

24 fps

[draynay]

my eyes are trained for 24fps and they get angry at higher rates for movie/television watching

[Libram]

I love the realistic movements. However I can't stand when it starts to look like The Young and The Restless >.> *cough*Stargate Universe*cough*
So depending on the use of camera angles and lighting, and animation, i'm for 48fps and above!
I find the reason for it looking so cheap at high frames is the animation. At 24fps it's harder for us to see the small details that rush by and masked by blur, but then when it's very smooth and high frame we tend to pick up on just how bad our CGI animation really is when it tries to imitate something that is realistic.
Animated cartoons that display in high frames is perfectly fine with most people because its a fake fiction movie, but when we see it in a cinematic movie we notice just how fake and ugly the animation is.
I've watched some movies on my TV which play on a high frame, and they look plain awful! Avatar is given no justice, but then when played on my old tv which displays on a lower frame the movie looks very nice!
I think Peter Jackson needs to hold back the frame rate fiasco because our CGI just isn't that good enough! Yea it may look very realistic and gorgeous when seen in still shots or limited movement, but when the characters move about or there's lots of movement it is very noticeable.

[Jon]

Haven't seen enough 48fps movies to judge.

[Deleted]

I love the realistic movements. However I can't stand when it starts to look like The Young and The Restless >.> *cough*Stargate Universe*cough*
So depending on the use of camera angles and lighting, and animation, i'm for 48fps and above!
I find the reason for it looking so cheap at high frames is the animation. At 24fps it's harder for us to see the small details that rush by and masked by blur, but then when it's very smooth and high frame we tend to pick up on just how bad our CGI animation really is when it tries to imitate something that is realistic.
Animated cartoons that display in high frames is perfectly fine with most people because its a fake fiction movie, but when we see it in a cinematic movie we notice just how fake and ugly the animation is.
I've watched some movies on my TV which play on a high frame, and they look plain awful! Avatar is given no justice, but then when played on my old tv which displays on a lower frame the movie looks very nice!
I think Peter Jackson needs to hold back the frame rate fiasco because our CGI just isn't that good enough! Yea it may look very realistic and gorgeous when seen in still shots or limited movement, but when the characters move about or there's lots of movement it is very noticeable.

How can you watch a movie in more fps than it's recorded?
If you're talking about that trumotion 100Hz or something like that, it's not real, it's faking the higher framerate and it looks awful.
That said, I prefer movies 24fps not because CGI looks less realistic. But because it just doesn't look like a movie anymore, but a mexican soap opera.

[Shinzai]

I don't really see how the two sample clips could even be compared. The kicking of the ball is a lot faster and harder in the first one and much slower and gentle in the second one. It's far easier to see details and such in the second clip simply because the ball and person's foot are moving a lot slower.

As to 'actual' 48 fps recordings, I haven't seen any. I've seen TVs with the technology as explained by Drekmen (taking 24fps footage, playing it back twice and interlacing it to remove artifacts etc), but not actual 48fps footage. The Hobbit got a huge amount of flak from its 48fps screening, due to the footage looking 'too real'. With 48fps, I'm going to assume that CGI effects will become more obvious and it will be more apparent that soundstages and sets are just that.

[jonte912]

is this what arrested development is using?

everyone says it's a great sshow but I just can't watch it cuz of how it looks

[nezgral]

I love watching things in higher fps, it's why i bought a 120hz monitor, everything just looks so much smoother.

[dranx]

48fps. Its much more "fluent". Also, inb4 the eye only sees at 30FPS.

[Clockwork Pinkie]

Go with 48 and make it the new norm.

[Libram]

Just wondering.. Why are people going with 48fps? Why not 50

[elnimrod]

Just wondering.. Why are people going with 48fps? Why not 50

Why not over 9000!!!!?

[shadowlich]

24, as an animator I can't imagine doubling my render times for now good reason.

[Deleted]

the 48fps definitly looks smoother to me.
for future movies though ? dont know dont think I have see a "48fps" movie before.

[Fuzzzie]

There should be an option which says "let the filmmaker decide". If the DP thinks the film would benefit from a higher framerate then that option is available to them. It shouldn't have to be one or the other.

That being said, i'll have to wait and see a film in 48fps before really deciding.

[Shiny212]

I believe the future of cinema lies in higher fps ratings than before, namely 48 frames or even 60 fps. People that fear it will look like a soap or something haven't really seen it done to its full extent yet.

James Cameron is planning on doing the Avatar sequels in higher fps, as Peter Jackson is doing right now, with light tuned correctly it won't look like a tv-movie, it will just look clearer and more realistic than film has done before.

Naysayers are just being too conservative or old and nostalgic to 80years of cinema using only 24fps.

Trust the experts! I'm sure they know what they're doing.

[Resike]

Yes your eyes can only see around 30fps, but you have two separated, so 60fps for the awesome framerate.

[Callace]

The higher fps looks so much more realistic, it might feel like watching a high-end news report/scientific recording or something to that effect. The quality is obviously better, but it will take some getting used to.