3 problems with 48 FPS. (mostly CGI related)
The speed effect:
Things appear smoother and more clear because as objects move across the screen, you see twice the amount of images. This also gives the effect that things are being ‘sped’ up. Maybe because your brain processes twice the frames in the same amount of time..giving the impression that “more” has happened (something moved twice as far) even though this isn’t the case. When you combine this effect with the next point, it compounds the problem.
What we know is fake/real and our instincts:
The problem here is the fact that the NATURE of a film like the hobbit strives to put you into a fantasy world where you can be fully immersed in how magical and different things are ….and when you view it in 48fps everything seems too real..and too real is not good when you know that this world you’re viewing doesn’t actually exist. When you see a CGI goblin running across the screen, you intrinsically know that it’s a CGI because goblins don’t exist. At 48 fps it suddenly seems too real and this goes against the fact that you know it’s fake. This makes it looks like crappy low budge CGI..when in fact..it’s not low quality CGI, the problem is that it looks too real for something that you KNOW is fake. Seeing a CGI character move smoothly in great detail makes it seem too real when watching it at 48fps….compare that to 24 fps…where its more ‘blurred’ and less detail… you can sort of pass that off as ‘oh that’s a goblin’.
I think that if you saw a goblin or a monster in real life….the feeling you’d get would be something similar to the odd feeling you get when you see CGI at 48 fps lol.
IMO, 48 fps would be better for a movie like the Bourne identity….because this the world we live in….of guns, and cities. Seeing explosions and body parts flying smoothly across the screen in the clear detail of 48fps would be terrifying but It is something that you know IS possible. The rippling muscles of a goblin with hairs sweeping back as they awkwardly run is NOT the world we live in. Your brain / sub conscious know this..and makes it feel cheap.
The ‘Cheap’ physical setting effect:
Thirdly, the last problem with 48 FPS means that you see not just detail, but EVERY DETAIL. Remember when HD first came out and all of a sudden people on tv didn’t look so attractive, (new lady, sports anchors, athletes)…you can see the blemishes, and wrinkles a lot clearer. The same concept applies to 48FPS movies….the quality of the set and costumes must be top notch or you will think that the characters got their costumes at a cheap Halloween store. Hair, makeup, armor, all the things that are supposed to draw you into a film will ruin the experience if they’re not top top top quality.
I think 48 fps would be best served if reserved for big budget action flicks. Movies that take place in the world we know, not a fantasy world. But only big budget films that can afford to have the best quality sets, props, and costumes. This would eliminate the last 2 of 3 problems I mentioned above. The first problem is something that I think we would get used to as we watched more and more 48 fps movies.
I'd be interested in hearing any problems with camera movement looking too jerky because this is something that has been mentioned by people who have seen the film.
I believe when you raise the issue of movement looking "sped up" I think it's because the higher frame rate tends to communicate motion too literally, in the same way that 3D can communicate depth too literally. It is giving us more information than we actually need to know that a person is moving from one place to another. Since we don't need all this additional information, our brain assumes that there must be some reason why it is being given to us: that we are supposed to be paying attention to the literal movement, or the literal depth of an object, as in how many inches closer to us is it than some other object, etc.