[DNA-1842]

Originally Posted by samwiseb

I don't know that shooting 48fps is that high tech per say... though obviously you double the amount of film that you shoot, and need projectors that can project the film twice as fast. Then I imagine you drop every other frame to create 'standard' 24fps prints for those theaters that can only project film at the normal speed.

I thought that Peter Jackson was using 48fps because it made the 3D better, rather than simply for the 2D. I can see why it would make the 2D much better, of course.

[horatio]

This neatly illustrates that a higher frequency does look smoother and also includes a counterargument, the importance of gaps in art.

[martok2112]

Originally Posted by samwiseb

Probably. I didn't do 'enough' research when I bought my TV, although even if I had I doubt I could have found a 26" with a 120Hz refresh rate (my studio apt is only so big). If you can then I'm a sucker, because motion blur is a real b**** when it happens.

I find it hard to understand how refreshing the picture twice as fast can reduce film grain though. That grain is an artifact of film and is supposed to be there (I know a lot of digital remasters try to clean it up, however I find that philosophy somewhat misguided). But as for reducing strobe/flicker and motion blur, sure why not.

I don't know that shooting 48fps is that high tech per say... though obviously you double the amount of film that you shoot, and need projectors that can project the film twice as fast. Then I imagine you drop every other frame to create 'standard' 24fps prints for those theaters that can only project film at the normal speed.

There is a Sony 3D monitor (you don't have to play anything in 3D) which has (as a prerequisite) a 240Hz refresh rate. I believe it is 24 inches. It has two HDMI and 1 component port. You can hook your cable box up to it if it has an HDMI out. It goes for $399.00

[samwiseb]

I might be a sucker then.

My first 26" flatscreen was a Sony, but I took it back because the colors had an ugly green tinge to them.

[samwiseb]

Originally Posted by DNA-1842

I thought that Peter Jackson was using 48fps because it made the 3D better, rather than simply for the 2D. I can see why it would make the 2D much better, of course.

It could well be his reason. I would think the improvement of a doubled frame rate to standard film would be just as great if not moreso, however I'm also somewhat biased on this issue:

3D to me is a gimmick. It provides a unique experience by tricking out your senses, but it also makes everything appear less solid in texture. It is not actually 3D; there is no such thing as 3D. Film is already 3D.

If film shot at 48fps really is all that I've heard (and it might not be), it seems to me that somebody could just have easily have labeled that 3D. This is just an observation though, not a complaint.