Well in that case I'll be happy to see it in 24fps.

Given that most theaters will show it in 24fps and the home video release will be 24 fps, I don't think it will be as big of an issue as most people are making it out to be.

lots of times the hive will choose weird reasons to hate a movie, using a small element as a scapegoat. like a brilliant film IMO, SIGNS, all people talk about now is the aliens and water to dismiss it. ignoring the master of craft and suspense.

I could easily see the frame rate annoying people that they discount the whole thing, even if it's not a big deal... they've been looking for reasons to hate peter jackson.like the unfair hatred of lovely bones. they want jackson to fail, to call him the new george lucas (already hearing this around the net).

now if he can create something that connects, the audiences will hail him again, but it's got to be a groundbreaking homerun. it will show whether Jackson is a Lucas or Cameron who can deliver under pressure. i've noticed the hive is eager for him to be the new lucas and fail

Have they released that fucking song Thorin is singing on itunes? I see the damn trailer over and over just for that. I cant wait for this soundtrack!

^Off topic! This thread is for bitching about 48 fps.

I shouldn't rise to this bait but Signs has way more problems than just water.

Indeed.

I agree with this. I won't see it in 3D which I'm assuming means I can easily avoid seeing it in 48fps. So to me it's a non-issue.

Fixed my typos. Happy?

I mostly agree, though I think it depends partly on how well they can downconvert it. Making it look good is slightly more complex than just removing every other frame, but hopefully not significantly difficult.

I just read that there will be six different options for people to see the film when it opens - 24 FPS 2D, 24 FPS 3D, 24 FPS IMAX 3D, 48 FPS 2D, 48 FPS 3D, 48 FPS IMAX 3D.

I'm sure those options will be cut down significantly dependent on where you live and what theater chains are in the area. And it's highly unlikely that you'll know what screening is what without a little research.

Guess I have to see it 6 times to make an informed choice

Drama for sure because EVERY episode for the Korean soaps will end with a cliffhanger. T&A not so much because Koreans tend to be rather conservative when it comes to things like that. You'll be lucky to see a couple kiss for more than a few seconds on a Korean drama.

Yeah, same here. My wife isn't going to be too happy about it, but what can you do?

I'm not a fan of the 120hz feature on HDTVs when applied to movies in the 2D realm, but I view 3D viewing as an entirely different field. Christie Projectors had a James Cameron-filmed demo at NAB (National Association of Broadcasters Convention) a few weeks ago, which showed both 48fps and 60fps footage in 3D. The 48fps footage was "interestingly realistic", but not something I'd care to watch a narrative with. The 60fps playback, on the other hand, was outstanding in 3D.

The 120Hz feature on HDTVs is a COMPLETELY different topic. On those TVs, there are 4 artificial, interpolated, essentially computer-generated frames displayed for every real frame of the source material. Filming at 48fps isn't creating anything artificial. It is simply capturing twice as many frames in the camera.

It isn't completely different. "Interpolated" frames or "real" frames, the idea is the same and it basically looks the same.

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. You are wrong.

You think the development of cinemascope and other anamorphic lense systems are cheaper, easier, faster or more convenient to shoot with than some riny-dink hand cranked camera from the silent age? Or 70mm cameras? What about multi-track sound recording and mixing?

So you've seen 48fps presentations of actual 48fps footage?

Digital footage yeah. I haven't seen the film based systems (like Maxivision, etc).

The film based stuff looks great (although it sounds like the projector is going to explode ). Where have you seen digital 48fps footage?

Anyone who says interpolation is the same thing as actual data has no grasp on reality. That's just simple math.

Maybe it takes more people, but you get better results with less effort.

I realize it's not film, but I have been shooting video for the last 15 years. In my career I've gone from 3/4" to BetaSP to DVCPro to HDV to P2. I much prefer the 10 pound P2 camera over the 3/4", where the camera was separated from the deck by a 4 foot long cable and you could barely carry the whole thing. Better results, faster and VASTLY more convenient to get from the camera to the airwaves. I cannot believe movie technology hasn't progressed in the same way.

If you think movies should be cut with razorblades, covered in grain and have all effects done in-camera...more power to you. I'd prefer to live in the modern world. Especially since you no longer need a studio and millions and millions of dollars to make a great movie.

Who said that? I said it's the same concept. With "real" frames you get a more accurate image yeah and you lose some of the weird artifacts but it's still a higher framerate and it has the same characteristic look.

Supermallet, I have seen consumer (prosumer?) grade HD camcorder video like numerous others. After re-checking it is 1080/60p, not 48.