The Hobbit - 48 fps

[Botch]

Weird that the first I've learned of this is in my local paper:

http://go.standard.net/story/peter-jackson-hopes-hobbit-sets-new-visual-standard

Peter Jackson shot "The Hobbit" at 48 frames-per-second; all classic movies have been shot at 24 fps. Apparently there are some theaters that can show the film at that frame rate, and the difference is supposed to be great.
Now, I've got some misconceptions. I thought all films these days were shot digitally. I don't know what the "frame rate" for digital is. I've read reviews in the HT magazines about certain blurays to be more "film-like", rather than "soap opera" (translation: film vs. digital).
Would be a great comparison, a la Jeff Mackwood's Tom Sawyer fest, at some subsequent GTG! :eusa-clap:

 

[TitaniumTroy]

Mmmm, 48fps and shot in 3D, sounds pretty good to me. Great to see directors like Christopher Nolan, Cameron, and Jackson, pushing the envelope of what is possible in high end cinema. :text-bravo:

 

[yromj]

Even if it's shot digitally, it still has a frame rate. It still boils down to how many pictures (frames) are being taken each second. It's just that on film it means how many new frames are being passed by the lens each second whereas digitally it means how many pictures are being "snapped" and stored each second.

Having said all of that, I'm curious what the real benefit will be to us today. I see that some studios can show it at 48fps (which will be really cool!) but what about BD? I don't what a BD player is going to do w/ 48fps (if it's even encoded that way).

John

 

[Doghart]

The new Bluray player you're going to have to buy next year....

:happy-smileygiantred: