Note: if you are doubting if you are seeing any differences, the quality of the video is probably too low. On desktop the highest setting is 1080p and on mobile you should select 'Higher picture quality'.
48fps looks like a lot of Korean dramas I have seen or soap opera. I would still prefer the 24fps in movies. In dramas its good for 48fps or higher frame rates.
Film at higher frame speeds was a method even used decades ago when video recordings were transferred onto film and going at higher frame speeds to maintain the original movements of the video recordings and this use to be done a lot in Europe.
48 FPS makes the CGI look bad. Almost nauseating. The main problem with The Hobbit movies are that they are completely unrealistic and look ridiculous. It seems like all of it was shot in a greenscreen building and the live action characters look like they aren't real.
I'm so glad The Lord of the Rings trilogy wasn't shot on 48 FPS. It would have lost so much of its warmth, timelessness, and sense of mysticism and immersion. That trilogy was such a perfect high point of peak practical effects, warm, cozy film, and innovative digital effects. I don't think we'll ever see anything like that ever again. It's sad to see how sanitized and textureless blockbuster filmmaking has become, although certain projects like Denis Villeneuve's Dune, Blade Runner 2049, The Northman, and The Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance are keeping that ember alive.
There are a couple of problems with HFR cinema. 1. They keep using the 180-degree shutter crap (or just significantly faster than the frame rate) when filming HFR, leading to the soap opera effect. 2. Not all projectors can playback in 48+ 3. This video in particular is interpolated, not genuine. and 4. I do genuinely think 48+ is still to high. Plus, most importantly, they're skipping entirely over MEDIUM frame rates. 30 is a noticable improvement over 24, but still has enough _missing_ information compared to 48+ that it can look like a fantasy. Not only that, but 30 can be displayed on any digital cinema projector, which broadens the potential audience. Lastly, if they shoot with the same shutter speed as 24 (so between 1/40 and 1/50) the motion blur will remain natural as opposed to soap-opera like with 1/60 and faster shutters. The only other suggestions I'd make for HFR is to go to 360-degree (or very close to) shutters. That, and maybe try the upper end of MFR at 40fps. Again, with a "natural blur" shutter speed of around 1/40 to 1/50.
Hey mate. What about just slightly hiking frame rate for OLEDs to loose the infamous stuttering effect? not like 48, but a round number just above 24p so is actually watchable
@@gastonrelanez3724 Any modern TV should have an automatic compatibility mode for low frame rate content which may or may not include variable refresh rate. That aside, try setting the refresh rate to an even multiple of the framerate of what you're watching. Common examples would be 50hz and 100hz for 25p and 50p content, and 120hz for 24p and 30p content, though 60hz should also work since the industry literally invented the 3:2 pulldown for playing 24p over a 60p stream. If that doesn't help, try a backlight strobing mode if you have one. If you meant "Can't movies film just a little higher than 24 to be smoother without losing the magic?" then that's exactly what I propose 30fps for. You still lose a LITTLE bit of the magic, but with lower-than-normal shutter speeds to get more motion blur, it's more than good enough, especially if the producer/director has all the other aspects of a good film in place. The problem with 25p is that it isn't an officially supported US Bluray standard and that it's not really enough of an improvement over 24 to get rid of the judder almost entirely like 30 does. And the problem with 26-29 is that they're non-standard frame rates, don't even technically "exist," and as such, there's literally zero support for them to be played back or even filmed on anything. So the only options to "improve" movies are as I stated previously. - 30 fps and chunk the 180-degree rule to instead use 1/40th to 1/50th shutter speed standard. - HFR (48-60 fps) with 360-degree shutters or very near it, but these will still look "too smooth" for most, especially 60p in my experience with Gemini man (side note, Gemini Man cut down to 30p looks amazing) - Create a new standard with something that kinda exists such as 40fps and also use the aforementioned new shutter rule for correct motion blur. The problem with this is, again, standardization. Good luck getting support for it, and much like Avatar: The Way of Water any 40fps cinematic release will be cut down to 24fps for Bluray/digital with no variable frame rate (called motion grading) either. Also, 40fps will STILL be too smooth for most. Die-hards say they can notice 26fps over 24 and that 30 is straight garbage, so I think the best move is a small but noticeable jump from 24 to 30 with my improved shutter rule and see what happens there. 30 has all the right ingredients: Compatability with standard projectors instead of special HFR ones, Compatability with all Bluray regions, Enough extra smoothness to notice without detracting too much from the magic (at least when you use lower shutter speeds), AND it's an even division of your standard 60hz and 120hz screens so no 3:2 pulldown needs to be used to play it.
We need to understand that film can move smooth and fluidly also if you increase its shutter speed and video can move ruff and jittery if you reduce its refresh rate.
I only saw Unexpected Journey in HFR, but I remember the action scene with the dragon attacking the mountain at the beginning looked ridiculous, like it was being fast-forwarded. Eventually my brain adjusted and I didn't notice it, but then I have that same problem with forgetting a movie's 3D after the first scene or two, so maybe it was just me?
I've seen the quality difference, and it is definitely better. The thing is , i like that " movie feel" that movies shot on film @ 24 FPS gives to films. For me , being used to this look , movies with higher frame-rates always looked like they were shot on video tape. Kind of like afternoon soap operas in American TV versus the series that were aired in the evenings. The feel was ... " cheaper" ? Maybe it's just my old bias.
I saw all three hobbit films in the 48fps now the films themselves weren't the best and looked rushed as Jackson stated himself but I believe if he had more time with the high frame rate he could have made the films look better. I would love to see the three lord of the rings films in this as it wouldn't bother me either way. Maybe do the three films fully and put them up online. The extended versions though.
The technology is indesutably amazing, and you deserve the likes, however it reminds me of a postproduction trick where to finish blending two scenes together, the editors add a hue to the whole film to help hide the effects: upping the framerate here seems to show more differences in the cave troll's movement in comparison to Boromir's. Plus, some scenes look reminicent of old BBC productions, such as retro Doctor Who, Dad's Army and 'Then Churchil Said to Me' (I'v also seen people in the comments compare it to Korean Drama; not that I've watched any, but I'm guessing it's similar to old BBC stuff).
Yeah, looks like old cheapo early 1980s miniseries with badxlighting and green screen. 24fps hides all that seamlessly. I prefer higher framerates wgen all that went into it was designed for it. When it wasn't, it looks wrong.
Me too, video gamers must like it maybe but it reminds me cheap past video shows who couldn’t afford to shot on film. 😅 I always loved the grain of the films and the 24fps which gave the cinematic look.
Thanks for putting this together. I remember watching the Hobbit movies in the theater and thinking it looked all wrong, like I was watching a TV show instead of a movie. This looks the same way
You're welcome. Glad I could make it look the same way as the hobbit looked in theatre. That version was never released so nothing to compare it too for me. so I'm glad I got close.
the idfference is massive, but I think it's being let down more by the interpelation to create the missing frames, than it is by being 48fps ... yes 48fps looks weird, but I think the tool and trying to interpelate is making it even worse. I think a more interesting and possibly illustrative method would have been to take some 48fps shots and bring them down to 24fps. That would have NONE of the artifacting and strange blurring that's happening because you'd literally just be deleting every second frame.
24 fps is just old standard and needs to go away. Just like 23:9 or whatever ridiculous aspect ratio these movies are shot at just to fill the space of the cinema seats. Go with pure 16:9 and 60 fps. Enough with these archaic features.
La verdad fue la mejor opción grabarla a 24 fps Ya que a 48 parece una película hecha por un fan nerd más que otra cosa [Y eso le resta mucha calidad a la cinta]
There was something wrong with it. I don't know why. I play games at 120+ fps and it feels amazing. But in the cinema I remember that the movie looked like it was sped up.
The problem is that traditional filmmaking lenses, lighting, costumes and makeup (Even movement) and sets have all got to change if you want a higher frame rate. If you don't account for 48fps bringing everything into sharper focus (including light bounce) then you create too much information than our brains expect to process when going to the movies (Like being able to see bad costumes and clutter). That is one of the reasons 24fps works in cinema, as it doesn't pull everything in our peripheral vision, or in the backgrounds, into such high detail as well as whatever the scene wants us to concentrate on.
Honestly, it's much better when the camera moves on the shot you can clearly see everything in 48fps, while at 24 those camera movements made me truly sick for how bad they looked.
Why are all studios to spend more money (especialy CGI scenes) if they can perusade you the worst is better? 😆 They should shoot everything at min 36fps. 24fps is not watchable. There is no other argument against higher frame rate movies than "I have been watchig movies with poor frame rate, and I dont want to accept smoother movement".
I think the "problem", is that i never saw the LOTR trilogy like this, so its bothering me a little, but on the other hand, its how i saw the Hobbit trilogy, so that's how i got used to it, and in that case, seeing it in 24fps might have a similar strangeness effect on me. So all in all, its neither right or wrong, its that first experience what matters the most.
48fps looks like videogames, and that is not a good thing. I'd also say the image seems more saturated, with more contrast than what was intended, which makes the shapes jump out a bit too much.
X este video me suscribo encantado!!! 4 this video I suscribe, delighted... yeah, I know but that would be literally in spanicho... grammar, lets use it... I am delighted to subscribe for this video ❤
48 FPS looks amazingly fluid and beautiful, and most importantly it looks real. 24 FPS is a slideshow that hurts my eyes. Everyone here who prefers 24 needs to quit whining and stop ruining movies for the rest of us. You only prefer it that way because you've been watching low framerate movies your entire life. Get used to watching high FPS video and you'll realize how painful 24 actually is.
48fps is not good enough, 24fps should be illegal. why are people not raging against low fps movies.... more fps the better it is. it is like people cant relate screen to real life, something is wrong with people......
![ALL Unreleased & Deleted Scenes from Lord of The Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring [NEW Edition]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Zni9KHiG4CM/mqdefault.jpg)
![ALL Unreleased & Deleted Scenes from Lord of The Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring [NEW Edition]](/img/tr.png)
Note: if you are doubting if you are seeing any differences, the quality of the video is probably too low. On desktop the highest setting is 1080p and on mobile you should select 'Higher picture quality'.
48fps looks like a lot of Korean dramas I have seen or soap opera. I would still prefer the 24fps in movies. In dramas its good for 48fps or higher frame rates.
I’m so glad lotr was made in the early 2000s. Thank god
Film at higher frame speeds was a method even used decades ago when video recordings were transferred onto film and going at higher frame speeds to maintain the original movements of the video recordings and this use to be done a lot in Europe.
48 FPS makes the CGI look bad. Almost nauseating. The main problem with The Hobbit movies are that they are completely unrealistic and look ridiculous. It seems like all of it was shot in a greenscreen building and the live action characters look like they aren't real.
I'm so glad The Lord of the Rings trilogy wasn't shot on 48 FPS. It would have lost so much of its warmth, timelessness, and sense of mysticism and immersion.
That trilogy was such a perfect high point of peak practical effects, warm, cozy film, and innovative digital effects. I don't think we'll ever see anything like that ever again. It's sad to see how sanitized and textureless blockbuster filmmaking has become, although certain projects like Denis Villeneuve's Dune, Blade Runner 2049, The Northman, and The Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance are keeping that ember alive.
Cinephiles: 48 fps too fast 🤮
Gamers: 48 fps too slow 🤮
There are a couple of problems with HFR cinema. 1. They keep using the 180-degree shutter crap (or just significantly faster than the frame rate) when filming HFR, leading to the soap opera effect. 2. Not all projectors can playback in 48+ 3. This video in particular is interpolated, not genuine. and 4. I do genuinely think 48+ is still to high.
Plus, most importantly, they're skipping entirely over MEDIUM frame rates. 30 is a noticable improvement over 24, but still has enough _missing_ information compared to 48+ that it can look like a fantasy. Not only that, but 30 can be displayed on any digital cinema projector, which broadens the potential audience. Lastly, if they shoot with the same shutter speed as 24 (so between 1/40 and 1/50) the motion blur will remain natural as opposed to soap-opera like with 1/60 and faster shutters.
The only other suggestions I'd make for HFR is to go to 360-degree (or very close to) shutters. That, and maybe try the upper end of MFR at 40fps. Again, with a "natural blur" shutter speed of around 1/40 to 1/50.
Hey mate. What about just slightly hiking frame rate for OLEDs to loose the infamous stuttering effect? not like 48, but a round number just above 24p so is actually watchable
@@gastonrelanez3724 Any modern TV should have an automatic compatibility mode for low frame rate content which may or may not include variable refresh rate. That aside, try setting the refresh rate to an even multiple of the framerate of what you're watching. Common examples would be 50hz and 100hz for 25p and 50p content, and 120hz for 24p and 30p content, though 60hz should also work since the industry literally invented the 3:2 pulldown for playing 24p over a 60p stream. If that doesn't help, try a backlight strobing mode if you have one.
If you meant "Can't movies film just a little higher than 24 to be smoother without losing the magic?" then that's exactly what I propose 30fps for. You still lose a LITTLE bit of the magic, but with lower-than-normal shutter speeds to get more motion blur, it's more than good enough, especially if the producer/director has all the other aspects of a good film in place. The problem with 25p is that it isn't an officially supported US Bluray standard and that it's not really enough of an improvement over 24 to get rid of the judder almost entirely like 30 does.
And the problem with 26-29 is that they're non-standard frame rates, don't even technically "exist," and as such, there's literally zero support for them to be played back or even filmed on anything. So the only options to "improve" movies are as I stated previously.
- 30 fps and chunk the 180-degree rule to instead use 1/40th to 1/50th shutter speed standard.
- HFR (48-60 fps) with 360-degree shutters or very near it, but these will still look "too smooth" for most, especially 60p in my experience with Gemini man (side note, Gemini Man cut down to 30p looks amazing)
- Create a new standard with something that kinda exists such as 40fps and also use the aforementioned new shutter rule for correct motion blur. The problem with this is, again, standardization. Good luck getting support for it, and much like Avatar: The Way of Water any 40fps cinematic release will be cut down to 24fps for Bluray/digital with no variable frame rate (called motion grading) either. Also, 40fps will STILL be too smooth for most.
Die-hards say they can notice 26fps over 24 and that 30 is straight garbage, so I think the best move is a small but noticeable jump from 24 to 30 with my improved shutter rule and see what happens there. 30 has all the right ingredients: Compatability with standard projectors instead of special HFR ones, Compatability with all Bluray regions, Enough extra smoothness to notice without detracting too much from the magic (at least when you use lower shutter speeds), AND it's an even division of your standard 60hz and 120hz screens so no 3:2 pulldown needs to be used to play it.
We need to understand that film can move smooth and fluidly also if you increase its shutter speed and video can move ruff and jittery if you reduce its refresh rate.
I only saw Unexpected Journey in HFR, but I remember the action scene with the dragon attacking the mountain at the beginning looked ridiculous, like it was being fast-forwarded. Eventually my brain adjusted and I didn't notice it, but then I have that same problem with forgetting a movie's 3D after the first scene or two, so maybe it was just me?
I've seen the quality difference, and it is definitely better. The thing is , i like that " movie feel" that movies shot on film @ 24 FPS gives to films. For me , being used to this look , movies with higher frame-rates always looked like they were shot on video tape. Kind of like afternoon soap operas in American TV versus the series that were aired in the evenings. The feel was ... " cheaper" ? Maybe it's just my old bias.
you're spot on - movies should be 24fps
My thoughts exactly.
I saw all three hobbit films in the 48fps now the films themselves weren't the best and looked rushed as Jackson stated himself but I believe if he had more time with the high frame rate he could have made the films look better. I would love to see the three lord of the rings films in this as it wouldn't bother me either way. Maybe do the three films fully and put them up online. The extended versions though.
The technology is indesutably amazing, and you deserve the likes, however it reminds me of a postproduction trick where to finish blending two scenes together, the editors add a hue to the whole film to help hide the effects: upping the framerate here seems to show more differences in the cave troll's movement in comparison to Boromir's.
Plus, some scenes look reminicent of old BBC productions, such as retro Doctor Who, Dad's Army and 'Then Churchil Said to Me' (I'v also seen people in the comments compare it to Korean Drama; not that I've watched any, but I'm guessing it's similar to old BBC stuff).
Yeah, looks like old cheapo early 1980s miniseries with badxlighting and green screen. 24fps hides all that seamlessly. I prefer higher framerates wgen all that went into it was designed for it. When it wasn't, it looks wrong.
I saw the first Hobbit movie in HFR and I thought it looked awesome.
prefer 24fps, 48 or higher looks too real and spoils the cinematic experience.
Me too, video gamers must like it maybe but it reminds me cheap past video shows who couldn’t afford to shot on film. 😅 I always loved the grain of the films and the 24fps which gave the cinematic look.
Thanks for putting this together. I remember watching the Hobbit movies in the theater and thinking it looked all wrong, like I was watching a TV show instead of a movie. This looks the same way
You're welcome. Glad I could make it look the same way as the hobbit looked in theatre. That version was never released so nothing to compare it too for me. so I'm glad I got close.
the idfference is massive, but I think it's being let down more by the interpelation to create the missing frames, than it is by being 48fps ... yes 48fps looks weird, but I think the tool and trying to interpelate is making it even worse.
I think a more interesting and possibly illustrative method would have been to take some 48fps shots and bring them down to 24fps. That would have NONE of the artifacting and strange blurring that's happening because you'd literally just be deleting every second frame.
48 FPS feels "uncanny" for some reason
I definitely prefer 24 fps! It gives more imagination to the film somehow. 48 fps has more fluidity to the film but is too much like an X Box game.
24 fps is just old standard and needs to go away. Just like 23:9 or whatever ridiculous aspect ratio these movies are shot at just to fill the space of the cinema seats. Go with pure 16:9 and 60 fps. Enough with these archaic features.
Looks like your standard saturday morning soap opera. I prefer the original epic cinematic format.
La verdad fue la mejor opción grabarla a 24 fps
Ya que a 48 parece una película hecha por un fan nerd más que otra cosa
[Y eso le resta mucha calidad a la cinta]
There was something wrong with it. I don't know why. I play games at 120+ fps and it feels amazing. But in the cinema I remember that the movie looked like it was sped up.
More frames tend to make most things look good but in this case some parts are a bit off.
Tbf you are creating 48fps from a 24fps video, so it's not gonna be perfectly shot like 48fps from scratch.
Can’t tell much a difference except smoke and dust is more defined in 48
High fps on movies look like crap, it's like looking at a TV nature documentary instead of a cinematic movie. Makes it look cheap.
The problem is that traditional filmmaking lenses, lighting, costumes and makeup (Even movement) and sets have all got to change if you want a higher frame rate. If you don't account for 48fps bringing everything into sharper focus (including light bounce) then you create too much information than our brains expect to process when going to the movies (Like being able to see bad costumes and clutter). That is one of the reasons 24fps works in cinema, as it doesn't pull everything in our peripheral vision, or in the backgrounds, into such high detail as well as whatever the scene wants us to concentrate on.
What a bunch of bullshit. Fps has nothing to do with detail, it's the same detail, just faster. Also has nothing do with peripheral vision. Nonsense.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
24fps resembles a cinematic experience with WEIGHT.
48fps reminds me of a TV Series on Syfy 😅
The high fps make it less calm or something
Great video, thanks for this. I have a question, was LOTR shot in 24 fps or in 23.976 fps?
24. Mechanical film cameras can only do 24 fps. The difference is so negligible, however, it would be invisible to the human eye.
48 looks too much like 1980s VHS or news footage.
Honestly, it's much better when the camera moves on the shot you can clearly see everything in 48fps, while at 24 those camera movements made me truly sick for how bad they looked.
Thank god they didn’t ruin the best movies ever made!
Why are all studios to spend more money (especialy CGI scenes) if they can perusade you the worst is better? 😆
They should shoot everything at min 36fps. 24fps is not watchable.
There is no other argument against higher frame rate movies than "I have been watchig movies with poor frame rate, and I dont want to accept smoother movement".
Like some tv series
Gotta be honest, it's all very similar to me. 48fps was always fine, barely any difference, little bit more detail. All good imo!
To quote Mr. Plinkett, "You might not have noticed - but your brain did."
It looks too real at 48 fps, not enough like a movie, which is supposed to feel different that real life. Especially in a fantasy world.
I liked it. But maybe just a bit too fast, for me, probably, 40 or 39 fps would be a bit nicer. 👍🤩
Next:The Valley of Gwangi
it looked good
I feel 24 fps was batter i can feel the 'impacts' of the... well, Imapcts.
I put it on highest setting, it all looks the same to me.
It makes it too real. Some people might like a movie to match reality.
I think the "problem", is that i never saw the LOTR trilogy like this, so its bothering me a little, but on the other hand, its how i saw the Hobbit trilogy, so that's how i got used to it, and in that case, seeing it in 24fps might have a similar strangeness effect on me.
So all in all, its neither right or wrong, its that first experience what matters the most.
Tendinada.
Definitely not a fan, it has that cheap TV default motion smoothing feel. Makes everything look like a cheap soap opera.
48fps looks like videogames, and that is not a good thing.
I'd also say the image seems more saturated, with more contrast than what was intended, which makes the shapes jump out a bit too much.
I think the 48fps makes the effects look more dated.
X este video me suscribo encantado!!! 4 this video I suscribe, delighted... yeah, I know but that would be literally in spanicho... grammar, lets use it...
I am delighted to subscribe for this video ❤
48 FPS looks amazingly fluid and beautiful, and most importantly it looks real. 24 FPS is a slideshow that hurts my eyes. Everyone here who prefers 24 needs to quit whining and stop ruining movies for the rest of us. You only prefer it that way because you've been watching low framerate movies your entire life. Get used to watching high FPS video and you'll realize how painful 24 actually is.
48fps is not good enough, 24fps should be illegal.
why are people not raging against low fps movies.... more fps the better it is.
it is like people cant relate screen to real life, something is wrong with people......
sorry 48 fps is bad. Dont like it, everything looks weird
Thanks, I hate it
Its unwatchable at 24fps
everything looks like a shitty mocapped CGI cutscene. Interpolation is the work of the devil
Can't really tell the difference tbh
It would suck and look like suck, just like 48fps hobbit looks like suck
Couldn't have said it better (or more eloquently) myself.
Yeah i can't see any difference at all.