"High Frame Rate" 3D movies

I can't see (literally) 3D in movies, so no.

 

Well, even with 3D glasses, it looks flat to me. So it is a complete waste to see anything in 3D.

 

Nothing has changed. They are still 24fps. I thought that 3D died.

 

3D doesn't work for me either as I am nearly blind (8%) in my right eye and can hardly see out of the other (16%) For 3D to have the best impact both your eyes need to be equally able to see, so you can get the best depth perception

My son has excellent eyesight and says that watching 3D movies is really immersive but he always winds up with a dull headache by the end of the movie, so he doesn't watch them any more

@Laura I will mention about high frame rate 3D to my son and see if that also gives him a headache

Cheers

 

Thanks Laura I just spoke to my son and he thinks he gets the headaches because he notices the image flicker and sometimes blur although his girlfriend never notices the flickering or blurring. If what Peter Jackson says is true then high frame rate should fix my son's headache issue :cool

Hmmm being in Australia we may get this new 3D technology in a few more years LOL

The Hobbit 2 doesn't even open here until Boxing Day

Cheers

 

It is still 24fps. 24 for the left or upper, 24 for the right or lower. The Red cameras are the best of the best, but no matter what they do, they have surpassed what our eyes will be able to perceive from the output of the video or film.

 

Will you cut it out?

It is not the traditional 24fps that you implied it was initially.

It is accepted as 48fps, regardless of how it is calculated.

So saying it is still 24fps is disingenuous.

 

No, people need to pay attention to the tricks that they use in cimetography. Regardless what is being stated, films will always be 24fps, regardless if they are 2d 3d, 4d, whatever.

Again, the whole 48fps is not making the film look better. It is as I have already stated,m24fps per eye, end of case.

 

I along with hundreds of thousands others see 3d as a dead fad. It never took off from the beginning, and is dying a very quick death at this point.

 

So in other words, you came in here to argue and cause trouble. This was a thread about how people felt about it after seeing it, not arguing semantics.

There is a word for this somewhere...what was it?

Ah yes.

Trolling.

 

Saying this, in a tech forum is rather strange. I admit, I am not up on the 3D stuff, do you still have to wear the goofy glasses?

As far as films always being 24fps, I remember when a 256Kb drive was considered 'all you would ever need' for storage. Now days your toaster probably has that. :-D

A little OT, but how was the movie? Worth the $ to go see it? Probably only have it in 1D where I am at.

 

I think so, the really long one?

 

OK, saw one. Read the books. Very rarely go to the movies. Last 3 movies I have been to: 'Atlas Shrugged', the Star Wars with the ja ja binx thing, and the Matrix 2.

About once every 6 years? :-D

 

The soap opera effect, that's common but you get used to it.

When you get a newer TV with motion interpolation you get the same effect, the video doesn't look right, like it's cheaply shot on a home movie or soap opera but you get used to it and after that you will no longer be able to watch normal 24fps.I've been through this a lot since getting my first Sony Bravia TV.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_interpolation

Apparently it's the way your brain interprets moving pictures, it constantly fills in gaps by predicting what smooth payback should look like while your watching 24fps, it essentially adds extra frames into the video so it looks smooth, one you start watching higher frame rates your brain forgets and the un-smooth frame rate is obvious.

Interestingly it happens at higher frame rates, I also went through it when "Downgrading":-D From my crt to LCD, going from 120hz to 60hz but got used to it after a few weeks.

Just takes while until it looks good, then you won't go back EDIT You'll look back on this thread in a year or so and laugh.

 

<snip>
I imagine it's similar to the way our brains adjusted to the shaky camera technique that started with HBO's NYPD Blues ~20 years ago. Remember that? I had to lay down to watch it because it made me dizzy and nauseated. Now there are dozens of TV shows and hundreds of movies that use that technique and nobody even notices it anymore. Kids usually adapt extremely quickly to such radical visual aberrations because their brains have so much more plasticity than us old folks.

 

I haven't got used to that, that's why I refuse to watch any of the Bourne series:major

There's was a massive influx of them when they realised you could hide the quality of the action with shaking, bourne I think was the newer model that added the shaking afterwards digitally with a super computer, could be wrong.

 

Yea, the Bourne series movies were just over the top in that regard. I'd always wondered how they created those effects and never considered the possibility that it all came to be in post production editing. You're probably right.

 

I wasn't arguing with you:-D Bourne was the only movie I've turned off because of it.

NYPD was bad for that yeah, calmed down toward the end I caught a few episodes toward the end of the series and they were quite watchable.

 

Sorry man, I wasn't trying to hijack your thread. Just putting my 2 cents worth in.