Jackson's 'Hobbit' doubles film speed to 48 frames

It doesn't matter how many frames do you add... If the movie is bad, it will suck anyway!

@lrodriguezsosa Not exactly relevant, eh? Jackson wasn't saying that shooting at higher framerates would make movies better - he just wanted a much overdue technical improvement, which is always a welcome development if you ask me.

And if it is great, it's going to be 48-frames/second great. What's your point Iro***?

Ugh. 3D. Pay more for less. Little choice of screening time for non-3D version.

Sky is the limit. Or actually, human perception will always be a limit, and technological and financial constraints and backward compatibility with established standards are the limits for now. 48fps will probably be visibly better in fast action scenes, 60fps as well, and 300fps will deliver life-like but not really discernible effects to virtually all viewers thanks to the law of diminishing returns.

You don’t realize just how strobing and how flickery 24 frames is

And yet I enjoy watching films nonetheless.Sometimes ignorance is bliss. Watch a couple of 60 fps movies and you'll never be happy watching anything less sophisticated again.

Has anybody ever heard a film critic complain of a recent movie that it was too "flickery"?

Maybe not, luca, but we've all seen the effect mentioned in the article. As soon as there's a moderate pan, the shortcomings of 24fps are evident. Since they're no longer dealing with the limitations of film stock, there's no reason not to bump up the speed....

...but: there will now be at least twice as many CGI frames to render. That's time and money.