>healthy human eye can see at 50-60 frames per second
>film this at the NEW high frame rate of... 48 FPS

Hobbit looked like ass in 48 fps. Avatar 2 is the only time it kinda worked, since the movie is mostly cgi and they only used it for action scenes.

Remember that time 15 years ago that everyone thought every movie released from then on had to be 3D, like the transition from b/w to color movies or silent to sound?

>>211403089
in retrospect i'm surprised it did actually catch on for as long as it did. movies that had absolutely zero reason to be 3D just were, and i had friends who took it as the new normal: like seeing the 2D screening was in a lower resolution, or mono sound, or something.

YOU'RE WATCHING THOSE SAME FILMS IN 2D TODAY. IT WAS A GIMMICK, AND SHIT.

>>211402901 (OP)
>healthy human eye can see at 50-60 frames per second
if you're a fucking freak of nature maybe, silky smooth 30fps is enough for 99% of people

Ya know, now that I think about it, this was probably the best of the Hobbit movies. I didn't know it at the time, but this felt closer to the LOTR movies than the other two. All of the shire scenes were comfy as fuck, and the misty mountains song was kino, absolutely baffling it never made a reprisal in the sequels, like wtf? Also, the teaser trailer was so fucking good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvRfwsXlrsc

>>211402901 (OP)
I watched Desolation of Smaug in 48fps 3D and it was a trip. Felt like I was watch a stage play or something with that vibe.

The actual limit is 200-300 fps. Pretty much noone can notice a difference beyond 300fps

>>211404351
It's essentially a beat for beat remake of the Fellowship. Start in the Shire - go travel, meet enemies, escape - Rivendell - climbing Mountains - fight mini boss in mountains - escape - Orcs attack for final battle.

>>211404881
>Felt like I was watch a stage play
i didn't see it at the time, but i heard this from a lot of people. just seeing the fluidity of movement, more like watching 'a person'.

i did see a Hobbit stageplay when i was kid, i think either just before the films came out, or right after the first one did. they did what they could with the costumes and production (e.g. turn off the stagelights, then Frodo sneaks around with dim body lights to indicate he's invisible, which oddly made sense).

wouldn't mind seeing a higher-budget production, somewhere with all the different tricks i've seen in musicals and things.

>movie does a high speed pan or helicopter tracking shot or something
>looks like absolute garbage as the image stutters massively
>somehow no one I speak to notices this incredibly obvious phenomenon
Every time this discussion comes up it makes me feel like im losing my fucking mind

>>211405509
It is incredibly obvious.

>>211403089
No one thought that. It was just theaters and studios trying to justify the purchase of 3d cameras and adding 5 bucks to the ticket.
And you cant really truly shoot in 3d because you hobble your post theatrical release because no one bought a 3d television and all those gimmicks just look like shit when its not in 3d. Friday the 13th part 3 being a good example.

>>211405532
>No one thought that.
You didn't think that, I didn't think that, it's stupid to think so, but nevertheless, some people did think that.