I don't think you can totally attribute the negative reaction to it just being "different" and people not liking change. I'm sure that's part of it, but I'm sure the fact that higher framerates are normally associated with TV or home video cameras is contributing factor here.

I don't think you can totally attribute the negative reaction to it just being "different" and people not liking change. I'm sure that's part of it, but I'm sure the fact that higher framerates are normally associated with TV or home video cameras is contributing factor here.

That's part of the "difference" though. It's different than a normal Hollywood film, and I think that since we do associate it with TV/home videos and the like, it feels wrong and out of place for a Hollywood film.

I think its more than just negative association with other mediums or people disliking change, large scale film projection work by tricking the brain. Fooling it just enough to create that "pull" which you get from movies and not so much from small screen. The combination of high motion blur (due to the low fps recording and appropriately longer exposure times) and low fps might just hit that sweet spot. It's not like technically they couldn't have made movies at 48fps or even higher or lower, it's that 24fps for whatever reason won out against all those standards. Both economically, aesthetically and I suspect there is some sort of physiological sweet spot it hits. The ultimate test will be in the viewing I guess, but people shouldn't dismiss the negative comments to offhandedly. They might not know what it is, but it sure doesn't "feel" like a movie, that surely means something.

-ddn

Its not bad, its just different. It's no different than when HD newscasts started broadcasting, and all of the sudden you could see every imperfection on the anchorwoman's face. It's quantifiably "better", and because its so new and different that it confuses our expectations of how a movie should look.

There were also other issues with the screening, namely that the 10 minutes of footage shown were A) not color-corrected (and the Epic Reds its shot on are really different than other cameras in this regard, namely that its very under-saturated), and B) that 10 minutes is long enough to soak up that this is something different, but also not long enough to adjust.

There are also those who say that criticism is mostly coming from within the film industry, which internally opposes a shift to higher frame rates and 3D because it upsets their workflow and increases production costs.

Its not bad, its just different. It's no different than when HD newscasts started broadcasting, and all of the sudden you could see every imperfection on the anchorwoman's face. It's quantifiably "better", and because its so new and different that it confuses our expectations of how a movie should look.

It's "quantifiably 'better'" in the same way a movie is "quantifiably 'better'" than a still picture. There's more information in a video than in a still picture, which is why still pictures don't exist anymore. Seriously, though, 24 frames per second is enough to give an illusion of movement, but not quite enough to fool the eye into thinking they're really seeing things moving; this is not really an accident. Super-high frame rates can certainly make the footage seem more real, it's just that "real" is actually "people running around in silly costumes on sets and in front of solid green backgrounds." Through a more detached, artificial-looking lens, it's easier to see things an imperfect view into another world. When you break down these barriers, it can be more "immersive" but less believable. And sure, people tend to prefer certain "looks" because it's what they're used to, but this doesn't change the fact that when they see something different it really can break the illusion and render the final product fairly unwatchable.

A) not color-corrected (and the Epic Reds its shot on are really different than other cameras in this regard, namely that its very under-saturated),[/quote]

Really? That's kind of hard to believe; it'd probably be better to use some preset than try to show the footage uncorrected. Although the "dull" look is not something unique to the Red Epic (or Red cameras in general) as you suggest; almost all movie cameras shoot in "raw" (which are actually still compressed) formats that are meant to allow for flexibility in color correction and post processing. The end result is that they're very desaturated and very washed out when displayed directly, since the latitude is much greater than monitors can usefully display.

An article I read said "uncorrected" by that they might have meant that it was not given the usual attention, or not corrected at all, they didn't specify. According the the official ViDoc for the hobbit, the Epic Reds actually capture content in a very unsaturated way, and they have to compensate by really punching up the colors when they do makeup or paint sets. Not sure if that's a factor of the sensor itself, or that its operating at 48fps.

Also, as you imply, "quantifiably better" is not necessarily "aesthetically better" or more-pleasing. I suspect that it is going to bother some viewers, and I suspect there will be stories of people bowing out mid-movie and demanding refunds because they'll feel uneasy, possibly developing motion-sickness or vertigo-like symptoms. But for other people I think they're going to appreciate and be very immersed by the added fidelity.

Time will tell whether 48fps is the future or not, I guess. We shall see.

...and I suspect there will be stories of people bowing out mid-movie and demanding refunds because they'll feel uneasy, possibly developing motion-sickness or vertigo-like symptoms.

Maybe if Peter Jackson stopped f***ing the camera (as I've heard it called). I'm seriously tired of overly-shaky films. Most recent example: The Hunger Games (I know, it wasn't Peter Jackson who directed it, but Peter Jackson certainly has used the shaky camera before). I just hope The Hobbit only has reasonable amounts of shake.

Well, first off I think it was a bad idea for Jackson to screen clips that haven't been properly graded and edited. That's much more damaging than the choice of framerate.

24fps has a particular look that is associated with film. Motion judder, flickering, etc are part of the expected experience, and a lot of movie people are ... well, old. Resistant to change, uptake, etc. A few directors -- Cameron and Jackson in particular -- have been pushing very hard for 48hz, which maintains the same basic frame cadence while eliminating the artifacts. If you expect, or worse desire, the artifacts? Well obviously you won't be happy.

Probably the biggest actual "problem" is the lack of motion blur when you're driving at a 1/96s shutter instead of 1/48s. (Assuming 180 degree here.) Action movies have used this to effect, but I suspect that most of the Hobbit is not that kind of movie. Which brings us back to the original problem, which is showing draft work to "film people". Jackson is a very technically forward director, and I suspect his audience is not. Note that lack of motion blur is trivially simple to tweak in post-fx to taste.

[background=rgb(250, 251, 252)]Were film critics also complaining when movies got audio, or when they became color?[/quote]I haven't looked up the relevant history, but I can pretty much guarantee you that yes, there were plenty of loud critics of both those advances.[/background]

[background=rgb(250, 251, 252)]Were film critics also complaining when movies got audio, or when they became color?

I haven't looked up the relevant history, but I can pretty much guarantee you that yes, there were plenty of loud critics of both those advances.[/background][/quote]
There were enough critics to the addition of audio that it is possible to make an Oscar-winning movie about such critics (last year's 'The Artist').

Whoa... That's so meta I think you just blew my mind, swiftcoder.