Why 48fps

The makeup wasn't as terrible as some people say, and most of the VFX were stunning but not all. When I saw them in 2D however—it was almost like seeing another film. My attention wasn't drawn to them As I was focusing on central action. That challenges the "Suspension of Disbelief" theory that we all need to believe what we are seeing on screen and to get lost in it One of my main problems with 3D has always been that the director with the use of convergence forces you to look in one specific spot—looking elsewhere in the frame can actually be painful to your eyes.

When I see a 2D image I have the choice of where I can let my eye wander—and I find that relaxing and it allows me to get lost in the film much more quickly.

Looking into someone's eyes was painful at times—and I found my eyes dancing around the frame. Looking at every little detail around the scene, and having my visual cortex overwhelmed with the 3 dimensionality of the environment and the movement of the camera. So in effect 3D HFR succeeded in getting my full visual attention—but not allowing me to get immersed in it passively or with free will.

I was being taken on a ride and being told "look at the entire screen and all of the details" at all times…. I didn't identify with the characters at all. I didn't care about them. I didn't listen as carefully to they were saying or how they felt.

I was just too visually engaged to worry about that "stuff. They weren't connecting to the characters or paying attention to the dialogue as much. They weren't being allowed to. Needless to say this was FAR from a controlled study of course two different audiences of the same size is all I can claim as a fact - but the difference was palpable. It also felt like there was far too much depth of field The depth was overwhelming. I can honestly say I found it visually repugnant at times harsh words I know—but you have to realize I almost RAN out of the theater within the first 5 minutes.

Yet when I saw the exact same scene in 2D guess what? I loved the lighting. The depth of field wasn't there anymore. The image was cinematic. And this was with the exact same scenes And guess what else?

I connected with the actors. I was left to let my eyes wander and tunnel vision if you will to the detail or actor that I wanted to "listen" to or see. I caught every joke and chuckled. I became immersed. And I found this absolutely fascinating—even stunning to the point that I had to ask myself even though I knew the answer whether the same scene had been re-light and re-shot in 2D it wasn't—they simply used only one of the 2 cameras they shot with.

And this is coming from someone who has been studying lighting and the visual medium for 22 years. I then saw the same scene towards the end of the film with Gollum in all 3 formats.

In 3D—I got into it and I actually liked it just fine. In 2D—I made the closest connection with the actors even though one was but a CGI character of the pioneering and amazing actor Andy Serkis who's defined motion capture.

The first battle scene was also fascinating and in many ways a death blow to 3D HFR for me. The purpose of HFR is supposedly to make these very fast moving scenes much easier to see. Everything was in focus and semi-sharp—but I didn't know where to look. I found it horrendous. The same scene in 2D was easy to follow, very dynamic and poignant when the severed king's head rolled by at the end of the battle.

Because of the motion blur It worked. The 3D HFR. Not at all. When Richard Armitage's character Thorin picked up a sword to cut the main opponent's forearm off—I couldn't make out the sword in the 3D HFR at all ironically—and this was confusing as he had been fighting the creature with the trunk of a tree which had been split in two I didn't know how he'd managed sever an arm with half of a tree trunk.

In the 2D version—my eye was able to "punch" in on the wider frame and easily catch him picking up a sword. So with all of this here's the "Master Class" that I took away, and that Peter Jackson shared with every filmmaker out there that is willing to study these 3 versions of the same film:. Shallow depth of field, motion blur, lack of sharpness, and movement all help to create movie magic. If images are too sharp and you see too much detail The Canon 5D MKII showed us that in many ways—it's large sensor and resulting lack depth of field combined with what was a relatively "soft" image relative to video cameras made it what it was when I shot " Reverie.

High frame rates belong on bad TV shows and perhaps sports. That is unless this next generation of video game players change the rules on us of course.

I can see this working for animation, sports and nature films though. In technology, where more is almost always better, it is unusual to hear complaints about something getting faster.

Other viewers missed the languid feel of traditional 24 fps movies. Like 3D, proponents of high-frame-rate argue that it just takes time to get used to the more realistic images. Perhaps fearing more audience backlash, Jackson has decided not to release any 48 fps trailers for the film — saving the faster frame rate for its debut in theaters on December Of course in this case 48 fps could be used just for the scenes which need to be in slo-mo, with the rest of the film recorded in 24 fps.

Even for full-speed scenes, 48 fps has advantages. Action scenes are definitely smoother and more lifelike. These changes may be disconcerting to those used to viewing movies at 24 fps, but new moviegoers could quickly become addicted and not want to go back.

Things you buy through our links may earn New York a commission. Jackson did this because 48 FPS offers a much sharper image that more mimics how we see the real world. It will only be shown at 48 FPS in certain theaters , though, and only in 3D. The majority of theaters will show it in a 24 FPS version. And yet, they often landed on similar analogies. Here is a rundown of the most common comparisons. Video Games.