3 ms·
I think they are making a big mistake tying high frame rate to 3D. The only way to see the Hobbit films in HFR was the 3D versions. But HFR all by itself gives
by rootbear 10y ago
I think they are making a big mistake tying high frame rate to 3D. The only way to see the Hobbit films in HFR was the 3D versions. But HFR all by itself gives an almost 3D realism to film, something I noticed when I saw Douglas Trumbull' Showscan demo at 60fps in the 1980s. I have friends who would enjoy the HFR clarity but who don't have stereo vision and won't pay extra for uncomfortable glasses that do nothing for them, just to see a film in HFR. It looks like some theaters will have Lee's film in 2D HFR, due to technical limitations, so maybe that will give them some audience feedback on whether HFR can stand alone. I'm also suspicious of the gain in quality going from 60fps to 120fps. I saw a demo of HFR at Siggraph a few years back and the change from 24fps to 48fps was very clear. Going to 60fps was less of an improvement, but for fast action scenes it was noticeable. I'm not sure that 120fps will be worth the extra expense, but I'm interested in seeing it.
- moogleii 10y agoA 120fps master will be useful for 3d at home where the technology relies on rapid alternation between left and right eyes, so the effective fps per eye will be 60. Although, now that I think about it, it might be useful for theaters, too, since they're using two polarized source frames per projected frame. It depends if they're counting the combined, projected frame as one frame or as two source frames to reach their 120 fps claim. Actually, out of curiosity, I read up on how Real 3D does it, and they use alternating, polarized frames out of one projector, which would be 60fps per eye.