“Have to…vomit…how much longer…do I have to…gaze purposefully…at horizon…”
It seems like Hollywood has a real vendetta against people (like me) with weak stomachs. Over the past few years they’ve rolled out one gut-churning gimmick after another — first it was shaky-cam, then it was 3D, and now it’s movies being filmed at 48 fps.
Fps stands for “frames per second”, and 48 is twice the number of a regular movie. The Hobbit is the first major movie to be filmed at 48 fps. Adding more frames is supposed to cut down on motion blur and make 3D more immersive, but in practice it mostly just makes everything look like a soap opera. Also, as preview audiences are discovering, it might make you puke. Here’s why…
“When you watch a film [...] your eye combines long and fast horizontal sweeps with short and slower vertical movements to process the picture. But this faster camera speed requires the eye to sweep up and down faster than usual in close-ups to absorb unparalleled detail on a big screen, causing a significant amount of cognitive and eye strain.”
Of course most theatres aren’t showing The Hobbit in 48 fps, but if a theatre near you actually is, you may want to skip this exciting new viewing experience if you’re prone to motion sickness. Or go and bring raincoats for the people in front of you.
via The Week
![[avatar]](http://p.uproxxcdn.com/photo/3998/thumb)
![[image]](http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/thumbnails/130/110/2013/05/gammasquadeuropareport-150x150.jpg)
![[image]](http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/thumbnails/130/110/2013/05/gammasquadlegobatmanmovie-150x150.jpg)
![[image]](http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/thumbnails/130/110/2013/05/star_trek_into_darkness-150x150.png)
![[image]](http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/thumbnails/130/110/2013/05/gammasquadrobocopstatue1-150x150.jpg)
I was definitely feeling the eye strain. Had a bit of a headache afterward. TOTALLY worth it.
Did you actually like the 48 fps experience, or was the movie just, in general, worth it?
Both. Although LOTR was one of my favorite books/series of books growing up, I had avoided the films, so I went in without and preconceptions. I’d seen the initial 48fps footage at Cinemacon and understood the criticism. I’ll admit it took a few moments to get used to, but once it did, things just popped off the screen. The film was excellent – the presentation first rate. I have two recommendations. 1 – See it in a Dolby ATMOS theater if possible. 2. See it presented with an ‘active shutter’ 3D system. I saw it in XPAND 3D, and while the glasses are heavier, it had a bit more WOW factor than what I later saw in REALD. (IMHO)
Cool. I probably won’t see it in 48 fps, because as noted, my stomach is a wimp. But glad it’s cool for folks who can handle it.
Is there any difference between playing any game (that your computer runs faster than 48 fps) on your computer and this 48fps version of the movie? They use digital projectors right? I’m seriously doubting why people are complaining other than its just ‘new technology’ the same way people crapped on sound when silent films were the big thing.
Your computer screen is 15-inches wide. A movie screen is 15 yards. It makes a difference.
Size of screen doesn’t matter, percentage of your view does. You don’t sit 3 feet from a movie screen. Don’t be silly.
I’m not. I’ve never had anything on a computer screen make me feel sick. I’ve had numerous movies do it to me though. Are you telling me you really think sitting 3 feet from a computer screen and sitting in a theater in front of a 50-foot screen is the same experience? Come on.