High Frame Rate technology (The Hobbie) great for attractions

Clyde Birdbrain

Unknown Member
Original Poster
I saw The Hobbit at AMC Disney yesterday in 48 FPS 3D, and I was very impressed. It took me a while to get used to it (it seemed sped up at times, with Bilbo Baggins walking unnaturally fast), but I was blown away by the sharpness of the image. At times I felt like looking through an actual window, especially in scenes of mountains. It was gorgeous.

I was thinking how amazing it would be to use that technology in attractions. I would love to see an update to Philharmagic in HFR. I hope the imagineers are already working on it. A Star Tours-type simulator with HFR and in 3D would be incredibly realistic. :cool:
 

Disneyhead'71

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
I saw The Hobbit at AMC Disney yesterday in 48 FPS 3D, and I was very impressed. It took me a while to get used to it (it seemed sped up at times, with Bilbo Baggins walking unnaturally fast), but I was blown away by the sharpness of the image. At times I felt like looking through an actual window, especially in scenes of mountains. It was gorgeous.

I was thinking how amazing it would be to use that technology in attractions. I would love to see an update to Philharmagic in HFR. I hope the imagineers are already working on it. A Star Tours-type simulator with HFR and in 3D would be incredibly realistic. :cool:

The upgraded Star Tours, Spider-man, and Despicable Me all use HFR 3D and they do look amazing.
 

Clyde Birdbrain

Unknown Member
Original Poster
The upgraded Star Tours, Spider-man, and Despicable Me all use HFR 3D and they do look amazing.

I didn't realize Star Tours 2.0 is HFR. I've been on ST2 many times and like it very much, but I find that the sharpness of the image is nothing like The Hobbit. I see now that Star Tours uses 30fps, compared to The Hobbit's 48fps. That difference is very noticable IMO.
 

Tom Morrow

Well-Known Member
Its fine for attractions but I really hope this does not become a movie trend, as I hate how it looks. Granted, I haven't seen the Hobbit in 48 fps, so maybe it looks better since it was actually shot at this speed, but I hate the look of the feature on HDTVs which "fills in" the frames of standard movies and TV shows", boosting 24 and 30 fps to, I believe, 60. It makes everything look like a cheap soap opera and looks unnatural and distracting, since movement will seem to be too fast at times. To me it also makes you more aware of the camera.
 

PittsBurghFuzz

New Member
I saw The Hobbit at AMC Disney yesterday in 48 FPS 3D, and I was very impressed. It took me a while to get used to it (it seemed sped up at times, with Bilbo Baggins walking unnaturally fast), but I was blown away by the sharpness of the image. At times I felt like looking through an actual window, especially in scenes of mountains. It was gorgeous.

I was thinking how amazing it would be to use that technology in attractions. I would love to see an update to Philharmagic in HFR. I hope the imagineers are already working on it. A Star Tours-type simulator with HFR and in 3D would be incredibly realistic. :cool:
I am optimistic about HFR. I think in time we will look on 24fps as we do 16fps now. 48 fps might not be immediately taking over theaters, but this is not a fad, just a trend that will take time to grow.
 

kap91

Well-Known Member
Higher frame rates have been used in the parks for a while now. Soarin is shown at 60, as well as Horizons. All large format film in general. Additionally, I'm pretty sure anything on film in the parks and in 3d is using a rate higher than 24 for similar reasons. And of course while I don't know for sure I'm fairly positive that star tours 2.0, potter, and Spider Man/ transformers are all above 24 well. There really is t that much special about the technology. Anything you see on broadcast TV that is 720p is being shown at 60fps. The Hobbit is just the first time it's been done on a non-IMAX film, and they chose 48 instead of 60 to be different.

Having just seen the HFR hobbit, I can't say I'm a fan. While the 24 frame process is "technically" flawed, we've been conditioned to expect it from feature films and anything else looks highly unnatural, specifically when subject's motion is introduced. It gives the whole "sped up" look mentioned above even though the movie is playing back at normal speed. All in all it gives a very video game like feeling to the film, and I hope we don't see widespread adoption of it in the film world unless we simultaneously see a huge increase in screen size(where the effect is much less noticeable - see all the theme park attractions that use it).

In short, yes the technology is a great fit for attractions, but the designers beat you by a few decades. :)
 

celluloid

Well-Known Member
I hate the Soap Opera look but there is talk of Hogwarts Express as an immersive window out to the scenary effect using a 60FPS technique.
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
I hate the Soap Opera look but there is talk of Hogwarts Express as an immersive window out to the scenary effect using a 60FPS technique.

The irony is the 'soap opera' look is the more natural. It's people have been conditioned to how film shows... vs the closer to reality video formats. It's just conditioning..
 

FettFan

Well-Known Member
Well, everyone has to have a Hobbie...
 

Disneyhead'71

Well-Known Member
I have seen the Hobbit in both formats. I MUCH preferred the 24fps version. It just has a warmth that the higher frame rate doesn't have.

That said there are certain applications that the 48fps would have it's advantages. I think SciFi would be a better application than middle earth.
 

NormC

Well-Known Member
Higher frame rates have been used in the parks for a while now. Soarin is shown at 60, as well as Horizons. All large format film in general. Additionally, I'm pretty sure anything on film in the parks and in 3d is using a rate higher than 24 for similar reasons. And of course while I don't know for sure I'm fairly positive that star tours 2.0, potter, and Spider Man/ transformers are all above 24 well. There really is t that much special about the technology. Anything you see on broadcast TV that is 720p is being shown at 60fps. The Hobbit is just the first time it's been done on a non-IMAX film, and they chose 48 instead of 60 to be different.

Having just seen the HFR hobbit, I can't say I'm a fan. While the 24 frame process is "technically" flawed, we've been conditioned to expect it from feature films and anything else looks highly unnatural, specifically when subject's motion is introduced. It gives the whole "sped up" look mentioned above even though the movie is playing back at normal speed. All in all it gives a very video game like feeling to the film, and I hope we don't see widespread adoption of it in the film world unless we simultaneously see a huge increase in screen size(where the effect is much less noticeable - see all the theme park attractions that use it).

In short, yes the technology is a great fit for attractions, but the designers beat you by a few decades. :)
Not quite. The Hobbit was actually filmed at 48 fps not just projected that way. There is the difference.They chose 48 because it is twice the standard of 24 not to be different. Soarin' in California is 48fps IMAX HD. I believe WDW version is still standard IMAX with Omnimax projection but it may be 48 as well. I know it is not digital yet. Standard IMAX is 24 fps. 3D IMAX uses two 24 fps projectors, one for each eye. This is an effective rate of 48 fps. IMAX HD is 48 fps. The Hobbit is new technology. Soarin' WDW would benefit from cleaning film, gate and lenses.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Top Bottom